Regular Session - June 5, 2001
8599
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
June 5, 2001
11:12 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
8600
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: In the
absence of clergy, I ask that we bow our heads
in silent prayer.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Reading of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, June 4, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, June 3,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Without objection, the Journal stands approved
as read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
8601
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
On behalf of Senator Velella, on
page number 41, I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 749, Senate
Print Number 4272, and ask that said bill will
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
amendments are received and adopted and will
retain their standing on the Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, on behalf of Senator Skelos, I wish
to call up Senate Print Number 3357, recalled
from the Assembly, which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
8602
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
519, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3357, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will call the roll upon
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, I now offer the following
amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
amendments are received.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
are there substitutions at the desk?
8603
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Yes.
SENATOR SKELOS: I ask that they
be made at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read the substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 4,
Senator Morahan moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 1449
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 500, Third Reading Calendar 49.
On page 8, Senator Farley moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 2057 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 1357,
Third Reading Calendar 151.
On page 11, Senator Kuhl moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5822B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2905B,
Third Reading Calendar 221.
On page 12, Senator Lack moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7753 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2935,
Third Reading Calendar 248.
8604
And on page 56, Senator Volker
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 6597 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 3309, Third Reading Calendar 1005.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Substitutions are ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, I
believe there's a privileged resolution at the
desk by Senator Bruno. I ask that the title
be read and move for its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Bruno,
Legislative Resolution Number 2299, honoring
Elizabeth Gallagher upon the occasion of her
designation as recipient of the Bishop Howard
J. Hubbard Award for distinguished community
service by Living Resources on June 6, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: On the
resolution, all in favor say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Opposed say nay.
8605
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: May we please
adopt the Resolution Calendar, with the
exception of Resolution 2203.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: All in
favor of adopting the Resolution Calendar,
with the exception of 2203, say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Opposed.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Resolution Calendar is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could take
up Resolution 2203, by Senator Alesi, have the
title read, and move for its immediate
adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Alesi,
Legislative Resolution Number 2203 honoring
8606
Andrew P. Meloni, Jr., upon the occasion of
his retirement after more than 21 years of
distinguished service as Sheriff of Monroe
County.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I take this opportunity to speak
briefly on behalf of someone who has been not
only a very close personal friend of mine but
a very close personal friend of just about
everybody in Monroe County, and that is our
retiring sheriff, Andy Meloni.
This is one of those bittersweet
moments when we say goodbye to someone who has
been the sheriff in Monroe County and has done
so much for everyone in the town we live in,
and at the same time welcome our new sheriff,
Patrick O'Flynn.
But in saying goodbye to Andy I
know that we're only saying goodbye to him in
his capacity as sheriff, because he has been
more than a sheriff to the people in this
county. Andy, as I said, has been a personal
8607
friend of so many people. And his efforts
have gone beyond his professional capacity,
whether it is work with Compeer, whether it is
his personal tutoring and mentoring of so many
other people.
His sense of humor has carried us
through so many trying times in our community,
whether it was the terrible crime of a young
woman who was killed to times when he has just
inspired people who have been challenged.
I'd say the measure of Andy Meloni
can be shown by the affection that our
community has for him. And in that
measurement I know, without any disrespect
intended to any of the efforts and qualities
and attributes of anyone else in Monroe
County, that there is no one who has done more
for our county and the people of Monroe County
than my good friend, Sheriff Andy Meloni.
I wish him the absolute very best
at his retirement. He is an inspiration to
me, whether it's through his sense of humor,
whether it is in his capacity as the sheriff,
an elected official, a good Republican who
turned around the Republican machine in Monroe
8608
County, and, probably most importantly, as a
father, a husband, and a grandfather. I wish
him the absolute very best, and I know that
God will bless him.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Alesi.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. I just want to echo the words
of my colleague from Monroe County about the
retiring sheriff, Andy Meloni.
Andy Meloni has set the bar for all
public officials in Monroe County, and he's
set it at a height that I'm afraid most of us
will never be able to jump over. He has done
it through a combination of certain political
invincibility.
I'm someone who at one time
actually campaigned to try to beat him in a
race. He proved to be unbeatable. And I
think that was a testament to not only the
fact that he was a good Republican but that he
was a good public servant, and that the people
of the community recognized, both Democrat and
8609
Republican, that Andy Meloni was there to do a
job and that he brought a lot to that job.
I wish Andy the best in his
retirement. I know his family and his family
members, and I wish them well in the future.
But I want to emphasize that I think what Andy
Meloni has done for all of us is he has
demonstrated that public life can have an
honorable quality to it and that public life
means that you are a public servant, that you
not only work the world of politics but you
work the world of community service as well.
Andy Meloni has established a high
standard for us all. I will miss him in
public life. But as Senator Alesi properly
points out, he will not be gone, he will
continue to be a fixture in our community, and
we'll be better served by it.
I'll vote in favor, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Dollinger.
The question is on the resolution.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
8610
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please recognize Senator Fuschillo.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
On behalf of Senator DeFrancisco, I
wish to call up Calendar Number 669, Assembly
Print Number 4917.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
669, by Member of the Assembly Morelle,
Assembly Print Number 4917, an act to amend
the Economic Development Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which this Assembly Bill was substituted
8611
for Senate Print Number 4427 on May 2nd.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will call the roll on
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now move
that Assembly Bill Number 4917 be committed to
the Committee on Rules and the Senate bill
number be restored to the order of 669
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: So
ordered.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now offer
the following amendments, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Amendments received.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could go
to the noncontroversial calendar at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
8612
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
20, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 368, an
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
in relation to confidential communications.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
96, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 512A,
an act to amend the Navigation Law, in
relation to the towing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
114, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 2118A,
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
8613
relation to period of limitation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
145, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 396A, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to training requirements.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
8614
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
288, by Member of the Assembly Magnarelli,
Assembly Print Number 5831, an act to amend
the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation to
certain technical corrections.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
319, by Member of the Assembly Weinstein,
Assembly Print Number 7923, an act to amend
Chapter 706 of the Laws of 1996.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
8615
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
325, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3613, an
act to amend Chapter 81 of the Laws of 1995.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
387, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3225B -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Lay it
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
423, by Member of the Assembly Sweeney,
8616
Assembly Print Number 5992, an act to amend
the Real Property Tax Law, in relation to
exempting.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
424, by Member of the Assembly Levy, Assembly
Print Number 6433, an act to amend Chapter 151
of the Laws of 2000.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Lay it
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
474, by Member of the Assembly Gordon,
Assembly Print Number 7804, an act to amend
the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, in
relation to completion.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
8617
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
487, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 2392, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
the statewide computerized registry.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
498, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 3346A,
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to issuance of orders of protection.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
8618
the last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Lay it
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
500, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3734, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to orders of protection.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
514, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 1763, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to authorizing.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
521, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3703,
an act to amend the Executive Law and
others -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
8619
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
598, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 3731, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: To explain my
vote, Mr. President, if I could.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I'm going to vote against this
bill. I voted against it previously.
I frankly don't see why we have to
establish special assessments for the values
of lands that are attached to marinas. These
8620
lands are generally assessed properly at their
best and -- highest fair market value. That's
the standard we use every other place in this
state.
And I refuse to make a special
exemption for marina properties. I don't
think there's a sufficient justification for
it in the memorandum. I voted against it last
year, and I'll continue to vote against it.
Marina property, waterfront
property should be treated the same as every
other property in this state. It should be
assessed consistent with our Constitution and
with our state laws at the highest and best
use. That's the fairest way to do it, to
treat them the same way we treat everybody
else, Mr. President.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 42. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
8621
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
607, by Member of the Assembly Magee, Assembly
Print Number 4909, an act to amend the Soil
and Water Conservation Districts Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
614, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 3796A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to proof of effectiveness.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
616, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 4675, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
cooperative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
8622
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 43.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
638, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 357B, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
placing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 43.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: This
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
641, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1227, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
arson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
8623
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
651, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3794, an
act to amend the Banking Law and others, in
relation to civil forfeiture proceedings.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 1 -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
655, by Senator Skelos -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
656, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 4341, an
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
in relation to the revival.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
8624
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
657, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8433, an act to amend
the Criminal Procedure Law, the New York City
Health and Hospitals Corporation Act, in
relation to performance.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
684, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5085, an
8625
act to authorize the reopening.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
713, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3752, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
teacher accreditation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect in 30 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
731, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 3763,
an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets
8626
Law, in relation to the New York State
Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
758, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 2564,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to allowing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
8627
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
761, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 2981, an
act to amend Chapter 602 of the Laws of 1993.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
763, by Member of the Assembly Little,
Assembly Print Number 5983, an act to
authorize the County of Warren.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
is a home-rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
8628
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
824, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
4264, an act to amend the Public Authorities
Law, in relation to contracts.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
835, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 3413, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
civil liability.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
8629
act shall take effect on the same date as a
chapter of the Laws of 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
836, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3499A, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to statements.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
839, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3583, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
loitering.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Lay it
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
8630
869, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5199, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
Executive Law, in relation to orders of
protection.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
970, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 84, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
inciting.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
975, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2519, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
8631
Law, in relation to the definition.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
990, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 4327, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to waiver.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
8632
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1000, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1450, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
falsely reporting.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1002, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 2164, an
act to amend the Correction Law, in relation
to information.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1013, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 541,
an act to authorize the County of Onondaga.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
is a home-rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
8633
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1016, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3679, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to disclosure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1017, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3757,
an act to authorize participation in the
optional twenty-year retirement plan.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
is a home-rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
8634
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1018, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3775,
an act to amend the Executive Law, in relation
to personal interviews.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1019, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3865, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law and
8635
the Family Court Act, in relation to the
duration.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1020, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3965, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to the tax exemption.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1022, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 4489, an
act in relation to permitting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48. Nays,
8636
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1023, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 4838,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law and
others, in relation to certain actions.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1024, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5249,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law and others, in relation to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1025, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5303,
an act in relation to allowing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
8637
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Did I
hear a "lay aside"?
Lay the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1026, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 5385, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, the
Correction Law, and the Criminal Procedure
Law, in relation to the civil commitment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is laid aside.
Senator McGee, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
will you continue with the reading of the
controversial calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
8638
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
20, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 368, an
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
in relation to confidential communications.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Volker, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President,
this is a bill that has passed this house on a
number of occasions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Excuse
me, Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Could
we have a little less noise in the chamber.
Take your conversations outside.
Thank you, Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: This is a bill
that we've been trying to work out for some
years. And, frankly, in most years it has not
been that controversial.
The initial bill was a larger bill
that included more potential for allowing
privileged communications between a law
8639
enforcement bargaining unit and an elected
union official.
What this bill really does is to
allow some flexibility for union officials in
dealing with law enforcement people giving
them advice and so forth, so that a member of
a law enforcement organization is able to
discuss situations with a union official
without the ability for that union official to
be called up before a grand jury or whatever
it is.
And I think that some people
interpret this as interfering with the law
enforcement process. I think the difficulty
here is they don't quite understand how this
all works. Evidence is evidence. If somebody
committed a crime or did something illegal and
if, for instance, a union official happens to
be a commanding officer, of course, as I have
pointed out on a number of occasions, it sets
up a whole different kind of situation whereby
that this privileged communication presumably
wouldn't hold.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Excuse
me, Senator.
8640
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Excuse me,
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Go ahead. Go
ahead.
SENATOR McGEE: I call for an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Does any other member wish to be
heard on this bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48. Nays,
3. Senators Paterson, Hevesi, and Malcolm
Smith recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
Senator McGee.
8641
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
will you please call up Calendar Number 1025.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1025, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5303,
an act in relation to allowing the St. Basil
Orthodox Church.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
will you please call Calendar Number 1024,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
8642
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1024, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5249,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law and others, in relation to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 16. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
please return to the regular order of the
reading of the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
423, by Member of the Assembly Sweeney,
Assembly Print Number 5992, an act to amend
the Real Property Tax Law.
8643
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator LaValle, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This legislation would give real
property tax exemptions to first-time
homebuyers. This legislation, in a very, very
similar form, was passed last year and was
vetoed by the Governor. But the Governor
indicated that we needed to meet with the
Office of Real Property Services to make some
amendments and some changes that we did, Mr.
President.
And that's why this bill now is
before our house, having passed the Assembly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator LaValle.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator LaValle would yield for a few
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator LaValle, will you yield?
8644
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, are
we encouraging sprawl by giving this special
consideration to new developments, to new
buildings, in other words, that are going to
be outside of the regular catchment area?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I'm
glad you raised that question. Because this
legislation also allows for a real property
tax abatement. If a person buys an existing
house and makes new changes to that, they
would receive the 50 percent abatement over -
would receive the abatement.
The work has to be over $3,000.
And it cannot be work that is done where
you're putting on a new roof or dealing with
cosmetic kinds of things. It is something
that actually increases the property
assessment.
So we are certainly encouraging,
you know, first-time ownership of new homes.
But this legislation allows for people to come
in, buy a $100,000 home, make a $50,000
investment by making those changes, and
receive a property tax abatement on the
8645
$50,000, the enhancement to their property.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator LaValle would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator LaValle, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well
explained, Senator, and certainly to my
satisfaction.
There's a different issue, and it
relates to the property tax by creating a
whole new structure of enhancements and
rewards for new housing that's being built.
Are we shifting the property tax to seniors
who have been living in the community and have
stayed there for a long period of time in
those old facilities that we're not
renovating?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. Senator,
whenever we -- with the exception of the STAR
program, whenever we give property tax
abatements -- that the localities, by the way,
must opt in for. That's a village, a town,
school district, a county, or even a city must
opt into the program -- you certainly do shift
8646
a burden from the -- onto the existing
homeowners.
But, Senator, what we are also
doing is at the same time, with a new
structure, we are adding that to the tax rolls
so that it becomes almost a wash. Because if
you think about it, you had zero on the
assessment rolls, you had no rateables. You
now put a house on there. And if that house
does not have any abatement, let's say you get
$100 in taxes.
Here, we're going from zero to $50
in taxes. So you're really not moving the
burden onto other taxpayers, because there was
no existing structure.
In the case of the individual that
takes a present home, an existing home, and
adds value to it, here again, you have the
same situation. You had a $100,000 of
assessment, you now put $50,000 on the rolls.
You would get 25,000 as your abatement for a
five-year period of time.
It doesn't exist in perpetuity, as
does the program that we have for senior
citizens or for veterans. That is an ongoing
8647
program. This program exists for five years.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would yield for another
question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I'd be
delighted.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator LaValle, will you yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator,
basically have I covered some of the concerns
that were forthcoming in the Governor's veto
last year? And if not, have you covered those
concerns in this legislation?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. Yes, we
have. Those concerns were that in the
legislation we needed to define a spouse as
being a person who also did not own a home
prior to the purchase of this new home or the
enhanced property.
What we also did is we selected for
8648
in the income level and the cost of the
housing. Last year we had both targeted and
nontargeted under the SONYMA program. This
year we specifically chose nontargeting.
And we also pick what is the value
within that program as of January 1 of the
year when this program goes into effect, 2001,
as what is the value of the property or the
income.
So as I had indicated, we went
through this with the Governor's Office of
Real Property Tax Services. And I know that
in our weekly -- in our daily newspaper,
Newsday, one of the spokespersons indicated
that they intend to be supportive of this
particular bill.
So as this bill goes to the
Governor, barring anything that comes out of
left field, the Governor should sign this bill
as his spokesperson indicated.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will the sponsor yield?
8649
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, will you yield?
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
LaValle, I'd just like a little clarification.
I'm supportive of your bill. I just need a
little information.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Sure.
SENATOR ONORATO: Is there a
limit on the value of the house for a
first-time homebuyer? In other words, we're
not talking about a million-dollar home.
SENATOR LAVALLE: No.
SENATOR ONORATO: And the other
part of the question is, how does it affect
Nassau or Suffolk? Where there is a school
tax involved, how does it affect the
school-tax portion of the exemption?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Okay. Let us
take Nassau and Suffolk County. We use the
SONYMA program, the limitations for
nontargeting, nontarget. And the income level
would be $73,300. The cost of the home would
8650
be $200,000.
The locality, under this
legislation, is allowed to increase, on their
own resolution, the cost of the home by
25 percent. But they would do that locally,
and that would change from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction.
Lastly, each locality, each
municipality, including the school district,
would make a decision on whether they would
opt into the program.
So in Nassau and Suffolk County,
the taxes -- when you look at the tax bill,
there's a county tax, there's a town tax,
there could be a village tax, there's a school
district tax, that being -- the largest school
district being about 65 to 68 percent of the
entire bill.
The school district would have to
make a decision whether it wanted to opt into
this provision as provided by the legislation,
as we do with our senior citizen programs and
other real property tax benefits.
As I had indicated, it would
probably not really affect any of the
8651
localities, since we are adding new value to
the tax rolls that the school district never
had on their tax rolls before.
And it would really be for only a
five-year period, as opposed to the other real
property exemptions that we have that are
permanent in nature. So this would end in the
fifth year -- after the fifth year of benefit
to the first-time homebuyer.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Just one
follow-up on this.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ONORATO: I'm not quite
familiar with the tax bases of Nassau and
Suffolk. But you indicated they're kind of
layered, school, village -
SENATOR LAVALLE: Right.
SENATOR ONORATO: Do each and
every one of them have the option of -
SENATOR LAVALLE: That is
correct.
8652
SENATOR ONORATO: So a village
can say, No, I'm not going to -
SENATOR LAVALLE: That is
correct.
SENATOR ONORATO: And someone
else can?
SENATOR LAVALLE: That is
correct.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Malcolm Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes,
thank you, Mr. President. I just had one
question, maybe two questions.
I noted in the -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator LaValle, do you yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I do.
Senator Smith, could you speak up?
I'm having problems hearing.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Sure.
Through you, Mr. President, I noted
on the memo the mayor of New York City was
opposed to this. Could you tell me why that
is?
8653
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I
believe that the memo is in error that was
submitted.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Mr.
President, through you, if the sponsor would
yield for another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Do you
wish the Senator to continue to yield?
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes, I
do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator LaValle, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I do.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Just one
other question, Mr. President, through you.
Could you tell me how this
particular program is integrated or if it is
in fact not integrated with the 421 program in
the City of New York in terms of tax exemption
for new construction? Does it have any impact
whatsoever?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I'm
not familiar with that program.
This program would be for
one-and-two-family -- also three and four -
8654
one-and-two-family homes. This program would
apply to one-and-two-family homes.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Through
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator LaValle, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I yield.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Within
the City of New York, Senator LaValle, there's
a program run under the New York City
Partnership. Within that program there is a
tax abatement, a ten-year program that does
exist.
And I'm just wondering if, given
this bill provides the locale to adopt this
particular bill or to allow that locale to
have a five-year tax exemption, is there any
impact whatsoever that this particular bill
would have -
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, one of
the things -- and I have the memo here. It
says, "If enacted by the City Council, this
legislation will require." The City Council
does not have to pass the resolution to opt
into this legislation. They are not -- this
8655
is not mandatory. This is optional to the
locality.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Mr.
President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Smith, on the bill.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yeah, I
think the bill is -- it warrants support. I
just was curious as to whether or not the
sponsor had done further research as to how it
would impact that particular program within
the city. I understand the option to do so.
My only question is assuming the
City Council opted in, would this then
override the existing program where there are
a number of homeowners who now enjoy the
luxury of a ten-year abatement program and
opting into this one would now provide them
with a five-year program?
So I was just curious as to whether
or not that kind of concern was given during
the research for this bill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Smith.
8656
Any other Senator wish to be heard?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
424, by Member of the Assembly Levy, Assembly
Print Number 6433, an act to amend Chapter 151
of the Laws of 2000.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Trunzo, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR McGEE: Lay that aside
8657
temporarily, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Lay it
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
498, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 3346A,
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Johnson, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. President,
this bill provides that an order of protection
be issued against a person who had been found
not responsible by reason of mental disease or
defect.
Right now, if a person commits a
crime or a violation against somebody and he's
found to be mentally incompetent and is
committed to a mental hospital for a period of
time or whatever, if he's released, there's no
way to get a further order of protection
against that person, because he hasn't been
convicted of a crime, he's just been confined
to a mental hospital and not found guilty
8658
because of mental incompetence.
But the fact is he could still be
returning, which is what happened in the case
of a constituent of mine, returned there, and
there's no way to get an order of protection
against him because he hasn't qualified
because he didn't commit a crime, a
misdemeanor or a felony.
And this way you can keep a person
who's mentally incompetent -- at least try to
prohibit them from revisiting and harassing
the person they'd been stalking or bothering
by getting an order of protection against
them, which is not possible under the present
law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Johnson would yield for a question.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, if a
person is found to be suffering from mental
disease or defect, they are then remanded to
the care of the Office of Mental Health for a
period, in this type of case, for up to 90
days; is that correct?
SENATOR JOHNSON: That's
8659
possible, yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, if
there's a statutory limit on the period in
which they can be held by the state, it's not
particularly clear whether or not the person
would know the difference between right and
wrong at the time that they're no longer under
the care of the office. Is that correct?
SENATOR JOHNSON: I suppose
that's true, yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then, Mr.
President, if Senator Johnson would yield for
a question.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Are you asking
me a question, Senator?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
don't understand how we would need an
additional order of protection against an
individual who we now know is suffering from a
mental disease or defect and may actually not
be competent enough to understand the order.
So while technically I don't really
8660
have a problem with this bill, functionally,
can you explain to me how this is actually
going to impact? Because the whole premise of
an order of protection is to let the person
know that we don't want them disturbing or in
any way interfering with the activities of
another individual.
And if we have concluded that we
may not even -- that the individual who we've
served may not understand, has already been in
the care of the Office of Mental Health and
may not even know the nature of their actions,
then how does the order of protection serve
our purpose in a situation even such as in the
one that you described?
SENATOR JOHNSON: I think your
questions are very interesting, Senator. And
I'm not saying we do or do not have an answer.
All I can say is this. That if
there's an order of protection out, which you
cannot get presently against a person in this
mental state, this order of protection will
permit the person to complain to the police
and they will apprehend the person immediately
for violating the order of protection.
8661
Otherwise, you have to have a whole new
procedure -- what did he do, when did he do,
how did he do it.
This pertains to a particular
stalking situation, and my district attorney
recommended this as a resolution of the
problem that they could immediately take
action without going through a formal
procedure. Because he already violated this
order. That's the reason they could apprehend
him and prevent him from doing that for some
period of time until they had to decide how to
dispose of this situation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. Thank
you, Mr. President.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: On the
bill, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I recognize
what Senator Johnson is trying to do. But I
think that people in the court system will
tell you that the order of protection is not
regarded by our criminal justice system as
seriously as I think it should be.
There are cases where one party has
8662
an order of protection, the other party calls
up the police and says that the person
bothered them. And even with the order of
protection sitting on the person, they go over
and arrest the other party anyway.
In other words, I don't think the
orders of protection are really followed as
scrupulously as they could be. So what I
would not want to do is to diminish the value
or the teeth that an order of protection has.
And I think in this type of -
piece of legislation, to charge a person who
has committed a crime who has been found
previously to be suffering from a mental
disease or defect, what you would first have
to determine, before you even get to the
violation of the order of protection, is to
conduct, I guess, a hearing under Section 730
of the Criminal Procedure Law to determine
whether or not the individual is fit for
trial.
And if they are found not to be the
case, the violation of the order of protection
is really kind of nominal compared to the
crime they may have committed.
8663
I think the real purpose of orders
of protection are for the competent, for
people who understand the nature of the
charges against them and understand what the
impact is of violating the order, of going
within the -- of going in the parameters that
were set by the order of protection.
And I think the problem here is
that we're actually, in a way, in trying to
help a situation we're diminishing the value
of the order of protection by making the order
seem not to be as important, because we're now
going to apply it against an individual who
likely didn't understand the charges against
them.
For the technical correction, I
guess I can live with it, Senator. But I'm
just saying I think it actually continues what
I think is a lack of attention that orders of
protection are paid in our criminal justice
system.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
8664
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
500, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3734, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to orders of protection.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, this bill amends the
CPL, Criminal Procedure Law, dealing both with
the sections that provide for orders of
protection in matters involving family members
and in matters involving, under 530.13,
persons who are not family members.
And what it basically does is it
attempts to address a fairly recent case. The
8665
problem seems to be that upon conviction or
plea, the temporary order of protection that
might be outstanding in a given case
effectively terminates with that conviction or
plea.
And what this bill would do would
be to require the court, at such time as there
was the taking of a plea or a conviction, to
effectively either state on the record why it
wasn't making a permanent order or enter a
permanent order.
Again, it's a response to, I think
it's People v. Bleau, in which a contempt
proceeding was overturned after a person who
had been convicted upon release harassed and
entered without permission, broke into the
home of the person who had the order of
protection.
And the court, while upholding the
trespass, I believe, said that that portion of
the order that held them in contempt, the
defendant in contempt in that case had to
fail, because the conviction effectively wiped
out the temporary order.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
8666
if Senator Saland would yield for a question.
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Saland, if I have this right, had they had the
order of protection operable, had it been
permanent -- I did not use the word
"permanentize," I said had it been
permanent -- what would have happened is that
the prosecutors in that particular case would
have had more than just the trespass, which
would actually have been the appropriate
relief had this been the first time this whole
thing had ever happened, totally dismissing
the fact that this person had already been
convicted for a previous offense?
SENATOR SALAND: Well, you would
have had not only the new offense, but you
would have also had the contempt of court for
the failure to have abided by the terms of the
order of protection. Which in this case was
terminated or, in a manner of speaking, I
guess you could say merged with the
conviction.
This is certainly an unintended
8667
consequence of what we would hope would be
accomplished by orders of protection. And
what we're merely doing is making it clear
that the court either has to provide the
protection through that order of protection
being extended on the record or statewide.
The court is not doing so. I can
think of far more horrible cases.
Fortunately, this particular case, People v.
Bleau, as far as I know didn't result in
serious injury to anybody, but it certainly
could have been far worse.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
on the bill.
This is good research, because we
would never want for -
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: We would never
want for an action taken by a court to
actually be extinguished by a conviction. So
once the period of time in the penalty stage
of the previous conviction had elapsed, the
former defendant was in a sense now in a
situation as he or she would have been before
8668
the first offense.
And so therefore, the merger
between the conviction and the continuation of
the order of protection does seem appropriate.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect November 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
upon further review, with unanimous consent
I'd like to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Numbers 498 and 598.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: So
ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
514, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 1763, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
8669
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
will you lay the bill aside temporarily.
And I'd like to announce the fact
that there will be an immediate meeting of the
Education Committee in the Senate Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is laid aside temporarily.
There will be an immediate meeting
of the Education Committee in the Majority
Conference Room, Room 332.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Would you
continue in regular order, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
521, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3703,
an act to amend the Executive Law, the
Criminal Procedure Law, the Family Court Act,
and the Social Services Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
8670
SENATOR McGEE: Lay the bill
aside temporarily, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is laid aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
607, by Member of the Assembly Magee, Assembly
Print Number 4909, an act to amend the Soil
and Water Conservation Districts Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Hoffmann, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill is at the request of Farm
Bureau. It is not uncommon in our state for a
farm to straddle a county line, and frequently
the resident of one county is actually farming
in two counties. This would allow the
representative who fits the Farm Bureau
requirement to live in one county while
serving on the soil and water district board
for the adjoining county.
8671
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. If Senator Hoffmann would just
yield for a brief question.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Hoffmann, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: I'd be pleased
to.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I guess,
Senator, since you're farming in one county
and you may not actually live in the county,
but it's an extension of your property because
it straddles the lines of two counties, you
really have an interest in that other county,
and therefore serving on the board would be
appropriate in that situation. Is that right?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, Senator
Paterson.
Mr. President, Senator Paterson's
question I think correctly identifies the
issue, and the answer would be an affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
8672
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
614, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 3796A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR McGEE: Would you
temporarily lay the bill aside, please.
Mr. President, please call up Bill
651.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
651, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3794, an
act to amend the Banking Law and others, in
relation to civil forfeiture proceedings.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Volker, an explanation has been
requested.
8673
SENATOR VOLKER: This is a little
bill that's only about 70 pages long.
Actually, in all honesty, most of
this bill is changes in -- this is a complete
revision or renumbering of sentence laws, and
most of the renumbering is not -- well, most
of it is not changed.
There are three essential changes
to this bill. The first change that I'll
mention is what we discussed I think on this
floor here just last week, I believe, and I
said that I thought there was a bill coming
that would have some of the same provisions in
it.
This bill, by the way, is almost
identical to the Sentencing Reform Act of
2000. This is the Sentencing Reform Act of
2001.
There are three main provisions.
The first provision says that, as we talked
about last week in another bill, that you can
appeal, the district attorneys can appeal
lenient sentences that they feel are unduly
lenient.
The second thing is that the
8674
prosecution can appeal bail decisions that are
felt to be unjust. And that, by the way, is
in all cases.
The third thing is that -- and the
most important thing probably about this
bill -- is that this is the determinate
sentencing bill. This bill would provide for
determinate sentencing essentially for all
felonies.
In other words, it has been
publicly stated to be a no-parole bill, but in
reality it provides that instead of the Parole
Board making a decision, a felon, a convicted
felon must serve 6/7ths of the term that is
established by the statute. And then, after
that, the felon could be subject to parole.
And it also provides for a period
of post-release supervision, which has been
discussed on this floor, by the way, on a
number of occasions.
The final main part of this bill
deals with asset forfeiture. And this bill
would change the way asset forfeiture statutes
are set up in this state. This particularly
would be involved in those who abscond and
8675
cannot be convicted.
And there was a rather famous case,
if I remember right, on the federal level
fairly recently. I think a former president
had a person who absconded, and I believe he
gave him a pardon, if I'm not mistaken. And
New York is still, in fact, seeking that
person for various reasons.
Although this bill wouldn't apply
to him, because obviously that case occurred
many years ago and the -- this would not
apply, because the acts involved occurred
before this bill had passed. But technically
speaking, this bill would involve some of the
issues that are involved in that rather famous
case involving somebody who has escaped to
Europe and hasn't been -- the government
hasn't been able to reach him.
The bill would also broaden the
definition of assets which may be seized,
including electronic equipment, computers and
other technology which were not really thought
of at the time that we passed the asset
forfeiture bill here I believe about ten,
twelve years ago. In fact, if my recollection
8676
is right, the chairman of Codes in the
Assembly at the time was one Sheldon Silver.
And I was chairman of Codes here in the
Senate.
There are a number of other
procedural reforms that would govern
forfeiture actions. And as I said, probably
the main parts of this bill relate to the fact
that this is an determinate sentencing bill,
6/7ths for all felons.
And, secondly, it involves a
complete revamping of asset forfeiture,
particularly in regards to those criminals who
would abscond from justice and they are out of
the reach of the New York courts for a
considerable period of time.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Volker would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: I certainly
would.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
8677
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator,
considering the heavy penalty of determinate
sentencing for felons as set forth in this
legislation, how do you, from the perspective
of the policy-making in correctional
institutions, how do you separate the
convicted felon who is trying perhaps to work
their way back into society and uphold the
rules of the institution with those who know
that it doesn't particularly make a difference
and then create further antisocial problems
even when they're being incarcerated?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think what
you're referring to is the fact that if this
bill passed, then we would have felons in
prison who would be subject to the 6/7ths at
the same time felons who would be under the
old law would still be able to be subject to
parole and would be able to get out under the
parole system.
Is that correct? Is that what
you're saying?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah. That is
8678
always a difficulty. And it's one of the
reasons why the discipline system has been set
up in the prison system, the so-called SHUs.
And these secure facilities would take away
some of the rights of the inmates should they
not conform to the conduct that they're
supposed to conform to.
And there are various incentives
for which inmates are asked to comply with
today, so that there is a discipline in the
prison system that would avoid some of these
kinds of conflicts.
But you are right, and initially
there probably would be the potential for some
extra problems between those inmates who are
subject to the old rules and those who are
subject to the new.
Of course, I guess what the
argument would be is that when you make
changes that ultimately all the inmates in a
prison would then be subject to the new rules
and you wouldn't have that problem.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
8679
there's a real quandary for me on this bill.
There's a lot of good work in this bill,
particularly in terms of -
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator, are you on the bill or do you have
another question?
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm on the
bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson, on the bill. Thank you.
SENATOR PATERSON: Particularly
in light of some of the purposes in the
legislation that address people who are away
from the country or somewhere in parts unknown
and maintain some type of control over what
happens should they return.
I haven't the slightest idea who
Senator Volker was referring to. Maybe he'll
tell me sometime outside the chamber.
But my real problem with this bill
involves the determinate sentencing. When you
sentence someone and they will likely serve
nearly 86 percent of the time for which they
are sentenced, I don't think that you're going
to have that type of incentive system actually
8680
existing.
I would like the record to reflect
that Senators Duane, Schneiderman, Malcolm
Smith, Montgomery, and Sampson voted in the
negative last year.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read the last section.
Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Volker, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you.
Senator, I am correct in stating
that even though we are changing, under this
bill, the determinate sentencing to 6/7ths of
a sentence, there is still that discretion not
to allow someone to be released at the point
of 6/7ths, serving 6/7ths of their sentence?
Am I correct about that?
SENATOR VOLKER: That is correct.
That's where you get into the definite
8681
sentencing. The idea is that the person
knows.
And of course, that's one of the
holds over that person also, that if they
don't conform, obviously they could be kept in
jail after that. And then you have your -
the post-parole period afterwards.
So you're absolutely right, that
6/7ths is only assuming that that inmate
conforms to the standards that he's supposed
to conform -- that he or she is supposed to
conform to in prison, and otherwise they could
serve the entire term and actually more.
SENATOR GENTILE: If the Senator
would continue to yield for one final
question.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Volker, do you yield for another
question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President. So,
8682
Senator, then the incentive to which Senator
Paterson was referring is not completely
obliterated?
SENATOR VOLKER: Right. Exactly.
That's absolutely true. The incentive is not
entirely obliterated, because they would still
be able to get out earlier if they conform to
the standards of the prison system and were
able to get what amounts to, I suppose you
could say, good time. And they could still
get out early.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Senator.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you.
Certainly I believe that the
determinate sentencing with no parole for all
felony convictions reduces the likelihood or
possibility of disparate or irrational parole
decisions on the part of the Parole Board.
And I think it sets in law a very set sentence
not only for the benefit of the victim but
also the benefit of those or -- to those who
8683
are serving the sentence.
And the 6/7ths still provides that
small window of opportunity for those who do
conform to the rules to be released after
6/7ths of their sentence.
And I think the real key in this
determinate sentencing provision is the
post-release supervision. Because that
post-release supervision is extremely
important, particularly if someone is getting
out after serving 6/7ths of their sentence.
To have that post-release supervision is
critical to making sure that we have done the
right thing in releasing someone after 6/7ths
of their sentence has been served.
I said it last week, and I'll say
it again, I think judicial review of low-bail
decisions and lenient sentences is something
that prosecutors have been asking for for
many, many years. It's done on the federal
level. Federal prosecutors can appeal those
types of sentences or low-bail decisions.
I have seen many instances where
bail has been set at levels that are
inexplicable, at times, given the
8684
circumstances of the case.
Now, obviously, defense attorneys
will say that bail is set for the purpose of
determining whether someone will return to
court. I believe, as a prosecutor -- and as a
court and as a state -- we also have to
evaluate the type of person standing before
the judge and the severity of the danger that
that person poses to the community.
So I believe that in the situation
where a prosecutor disagrees with the bail
decision, you should at least have the
opportunity to have judicial review of that as
well as for judicial review of lenient
sentences.
So I think, Senator Volker, you
have put this all together in one package.
Certainly I think it's a good bill, a bill
that will strengthen the message that we send
in this state that if you're convicted of a
crime, then we're not going to be easy on you.
And certainly, certainly in a situation where
judicial review is warranted, now judicial
review will be granted.
So, Mr. President, I am certainly
8685
in favor of this bill and will be voting in
the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson, were you raising your hand
to be recognized?
SENATOR PATERSON: No, Mr.
President. I was just a little ahead of the
proceedings.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 107.
This act shall take effect on January 1, 2002.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 651 are
Senators Hassell-Thompson, Paterson, Santiago,
Schneiderman, A. Smith, and M. Smith. Ayes,
48. Nays, 6.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Hassell-Thompson, why do
you rise?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
8686
Mr. President. Out of courtesy, I would like
to request permission to have my congressman,
Congressman Eliot Engel, recognized, who is
here in the chamber, who is a former
Assemblyman here in New York State.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Thank you, Senator.
Congressman Engel, we welcome you
to the chambers and we hope you enjoy your day
at the Capitol today.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Schneiderman, why do you rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr.
President, I request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
20, Senate Bill 368.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Without objection.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
684, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5085, an
act to authorize the reopening of the optional
twenty-year retirement plan.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
8687
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Leibell, an explanation has been
requested.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
we withdraw the explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
There is a home-rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
Senator McGee, why do you rise?
SENATOR McGEE: I ask that you
call Calendar Number 424, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
424, by Member of the Assembly Levy, Assembly
8688
Print Number 6433, an act to amend Chapter 151
of the Laws of 2000.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act -
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Trunzo, Senator Paterson has requested
an explanation.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Mr. President,
this bill makes technical amendments to
Chapter 151 of the Laws of 2000 by eliminating
certain language from the bill.
Specifically, the language being
the "acquired title to the property for which
it seeks exemption subsequent to the taxable
status date established for such roll and
prior to the taxable status date for the next
ensuing roll." We've eliminated that from the
bill that we did in the year 2000.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation
satisfactory.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
8689
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Please call
Calendar 836, by Senator Wright.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
836, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3499A, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to statements.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR McGEE: Just one moment.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Wright, an explanation has been
requested of your bill before the house.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr.
8690
President.
We too are dealing with an
amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law. And
this relates to statements at the time of
sentencing. Very similar -- in fact, what I
would consider a complementary bill to the
discussion we have had previously, to Senator
Saland's bill, working off of the same case,
which happens to be a constituent in my
district and was referred to my office by
the -- actually, the constituent was referred
to my office by the district attorney, based
on the Appellate Division's overturn and
decision and a recognition that there was
really a void in the law here resulting in the
temporary orders of protection expiring with a
guilty plea.
So our remedy, as suggested here,
is to do two things. Number one, specifically
require the court to inquire of the prosecutor
relative to whether or not the order of
protection would be made permanent. In turn,
that the prosecutor would actually respond on
the record so that we have a dialogue as to
the prosecutor's intention and, more
8691
importantly, that in the case of sentencing
that that also be explained to the victim at
the time.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Wright would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Wright, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, with
the distinct advantage of the legislation that
we've just passed earlier today offered by
Senator Saland, I wonder if this legislation
is not a moot point.
Because in a situation particularly
involving a case such as People v. Bleau, when
you have a sentencing, the desire to have a
continuation of the order of protection at the
end of the sentencing period would be
something almost automatic that the prosecutor
would ask for. But even if it was not, it is
8692
certainly the responsibility of the prosecutor
to actually ask for that.
Now, the omission or misfeasance of
duty on the part of one branch in the
courtroom, I don't know that that vests the
responsibility in another. In other words, I
find this to be superfluous to now then
require judicial intervention to remind one of
the law enforcement parties -- in this case,
the prosecutor -- that we'd like to know what
their position is on the order of protection,
speaking in a period in the future after the
sentencing.
My question to you is, how is this
not cured by the legislation Senator Saland
offered which really now corrects the
misapplication of the law, not necessarily the
actions of the parties? The problem in this
case was that the law didn't provide for it.
Even though the prosecutor may have forgotten,
that was really secondary to the real issue,
which I think was covered in the legislation
Senator Saland offered.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr.
President.
8693
From my perspective, as I stated
earlier, Senator, I don't see the bills as
being in conflict or duplicating one another,
but in fact see them as complementing one
another. And I look at it from the
perspective of a layman, as opposed to that of
an attorney.
And, frankly, the individual
involved in the case, you know, is looking for
some recourse and some remedy that in fact
there is an obligation for the parties to
state their intention that someone is looking
out for their interest and that there is a
formal procedure that says: You will do the
following things, and you will make the victim
aware of that.
I think from a layman's
perspective, all of that is appropriate. From
the victim's perspective, that's appropriate.
And that's the genesis of this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Wright would yield for one more
question.
8694
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Wright, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
don't want to belabor this, but does the
Office of -
SENATOR WRIGHT: Nor I, Senator.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Does the
Office of Court Administration have a position
on this?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Not that I'm
aware of, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Are they aware
of the legislation?
SENATOR WRIGHT: We have not sent
it to them for their comment, no.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
8695
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53. Nays,
1. Senator Paterson recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
will you please call Calendar Number 614, by
Senator Johnson.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
614, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 3796A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Johnson, Senator Paterson has
requested an explanation.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Many years ago,
Senator, I established the defensive driver
8696
course in the state of New York which provided
insurance discounts for people who took the
course in order to improve their safe driving
habits. And that provides, as I say, an
insurance discount and also point reduction on
your license as well.
Now, when these courses were
approved, there had to be documentation
showing that they had been given previously
somewhere, and a certain amount of records had
to be provided in order to justify their
efficacy at that time.
Now the department is going to
reevaluate these courses which are presently
being given, and the standard was 3,000
records for a new course be given. But
because these courses have already been given,
we know the operators of these courses. And
we found out that these records for
reevaluation cost about $5 each from the Motor
Vehicle Bureau, and it's quite an expense to
reevaluate and prepare it in the proper form.
To justify its efficacy to the
department, we have introduced this bill which
says a maximum of 1,000 can be required for a
8697
reevaluation, these records to be provided
randomly by the department based on persons
who took their particular course.
And that's all we're really doing,
is making it more economic to get this
reevaluation done and see if it demonstrates
these courses are still effective. If they're
not, of course the department could decertify
these courses or not renew these courses to be
given in the state if they're not effective.
And that's what this bill does,
essentially.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation
satisfactory.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
Senator McGee.
8698
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
will you call Calendar Number 839, by Senator
Volker.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
839, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3583, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
loitering.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Will you suffer
an interruption now? We'll have an immediate
meeting of the Aging Committee in the Senate
Majority Conference Room, please.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Aging Committee in the Senate Majority
Conference Room, Room 332.
Read the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
8699
Senator Volker, Senator Dollinger has
requested an explanation.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah. This bill
actually -- the technical nature of this bill
is that under the present law, a person who is
convicted of prostitution is subject to a
Class B misdemeanor. And since it is a
misdemeanor, a person under 16 can be charged
as a juvenile delinquent and therefore go to
Family Court.
However, because loitering for the
purpose of engaging in prostitution is merely
an offense, then if a person is under 16 years
old, they cannot be charged with juvenile
delinquency, because it is not a crime and
therefore not subject to juvenile delinquency,
and therefore that person cannot be referred
to Family Court.
Simply, what this bill would do is
to say that a person under 16 who is charged
with loitering for the purpose of prostitution
can be charged as a juvenile delinquent and
therefore could be subject to the jurisdiction
of Family Court. It does not actually raise
any penalties, but it actually says that that
8700
person could be charged with juvenile
delinquency and be subject to Family Court.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield just
to one question.
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Volker, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, this
bill also includes an amendment to include the
phrase "passers-by." Which again, as we so
often do, we add these terms to our -- as you
know, well know, our strictly construed Penal
Law.
And my question to you, and we've
been through this a number of times during
this session, is there a definition of what we
mean by that? Do we have any explicit other
uses of that term that we give some indication
to the courts as to what that phrase means?
8701
I think you and I have a pretty
good idea of what it means. The question is
when some lawyer someday looks at this thing,
are we going to run into that problem?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think it's
another one of those terms that is probably
not specifically defined in the Penal Law. It
is frankly a term of art, and I assume would
mean that people who are moving by a person on
the sidewalk and so forth, which is normally
what would happen.
And I don't think there is any
definition, I'll be honest with you, and
therefore I guess it would have to be
interpreted under the same kind of terms that
I think you and I would consider it under the
circumstances.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm going to
support this. I think this bill is a good
idea.
What we're in essence doing is
8702
taking people who are loitering for the
purpose of prostitution and putting them into
the juvenile justice system, which is, quite
frankly, where teenagers under the age of 16
belong, especially when the offense is, as
Senator Volker properly points out, really a
misdemeanor.
This is the proper place to send
them, where we can bring together social
services, family support, and other relief,
which probably is far more appropriate for
someone under the age of 16 engaged in this
conduct than a strict criminal prosecution as
an adult.
So I think this is a wise bill.
I'll vote in favor.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
8703
bill is passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
may we please return to the reports of
standing committees. I believe there's a
report of the Finance Committee at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations.
As a member of the State Civil
Service Commission, Margaret Dadd, of Attica.
SENATOR McGEE: Move the
nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I want to quickly say that Maggie
Dadd is a reappointment to the Civil Service
Commission. She is one of the most
distinguished -- and I mean this very
sincerely, one of the most distinguished
citizens of Wyoming County and, frankly, of
8704
the state of New York. A long-time friend.
Her husband is one of the finest judges in the
state of New York.
She's frankly been a tribute to the
Civil Service Commission. And the Governor
certainly should be commended for reappointing
her. And I highly recommend her for the
position that she's been renominated for.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
question is on the confirmation of Margaret
Dadd. All those in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Margaret Dadd is hereby confirmed as a member
of the Civil Service Commission.
She is joined by her husband, Mark.
I wish you congratulations and all
the courtesies extended on behalf of the
Senate.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
8705
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Rochester-Genesee Transportation
Authority, William R. Nojay, of Pittsford.
SENATOR McGEE: Move the
nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
would you recognize Senator Alesi, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President,
this is an honor indeed for all of us in the
Rochester area, especially for me, since
Mr. Nojay lives in the town of Pittsford -
also a personal friend, but someone who is
exceptionally well qualified, whether it's
been in corporate practice, international
business investments and acquisitions. He
spent time with the International Monetary
Fund in his younger days, and the U.S. Senate.
He is a graduate of Columbia Law
School and also has an M.B.A. from Columbia.
And he is also a Thomas J. Watson fellow,
8706
having served years ago -- fortunately, I
suppose -- in Nepal.
More importantly, I think Bill
Nojay is known around our community as someone
who is active in so many numerous community
activities that they would be very hard to
list, but his presence is surely felt in
Monroe County. And I am honored to have the
opportunity to say just a few words on his
behalf.
His contributions to Rochester and
Monroe County have been immeasurable. And his
service on the RGRTA to this point has been
stellar. And I wholeheartedly support his
reappointment.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President and my colleagues, I
rise to echo the comments of Senator Alesi in
supporting this excellent nomination. A
nomination, as Senator Alesi well indicated,
that would in and of itself, based on the
criteria of the qualifications -- the
8707
experience level of the nominee in and of
itself would warrant renomination.
But I also wish to speak, as
Senator Alesi mentioned, about the fine record
of Bill Nojay in service to the greater
Genesee Regional Transportation Authority.
The GRTA has been an institution existing for
many, many years. But under the leadership of
Bill Nojay and the direction of the great
staff that has been put together there, most
particularly Don Reilly, that we have seen a
renaissance of transportation-related services
in the greater Rochester area.
And that Bill should be thanked,
congratulated, and frankly looked at as a
model for other regional transportation
authorities across the state. They have not
only enhanced ridership, they've reduced the
deficits so now they're running at surplus and
working aggressively to do so.
They're also engaged in a number of
dynamic projects that will enhance the quality
of life in our community. That most
particularly the regional transit center that
would serve, in my view, as a showcase of
8708
transit centers, not just here in New York
State but all across the United States. The
plans are ambitious. But it takes a very
qualified, aggressive individual to lead us in
those plans.
And I just wish to take this
opportunity to thank Bill for his service and
to urge my colleagues to join Senator Alesi,
myself, and Senator Maziarz in supporting this
great nomination.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I rise in support of the nomination
of William Nojay as a member of the
Rochester-Genesee Transportation Authority. I
represent the rural/suburban area of Monroe
County on the west side. And the individuals
that I represent of course use public
transportation a great deal to get in and out
of the city of Rochester. And I've worked
very closely with Mr. Nojay and with the
administration of the transportation
authority, and I think they've done an
8709
excellent job. And certainly Mr. Nojay
warrants reappointment.
So I congratulate you, Bill, I
thank you on behalf of my constituency, and
congratulate Governor Pataki on another fine
nomination.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I rise to vote in favor of Bill
Nojay for reappointment to the regional
transit authority in Rochester. I interviewed
Bill in the Finance Committee. And, Bill,
once again -- Bill and I have met on a number
of different venues in our other capacities
outside public life and private lives. Bill
Nojay gives you straight answers and is not
afraid of tough questions.
I disagree with him, perhaps, on
some of the answers, and I assume that that
disagreement may continue. But I don't
believe that that's a sufficient basis, Mr.
President, to not cast my vote in favor of
8710
him.
I think that there have been
beneficial changes in the organization and
certainly the spirit and the enthusiasm in the
transit authority. I agree with Senator
Nozzolio and Senator Alesi and Senator Maziarz
that many of those changes have been for the
better.
I still think that there are
critical issues that we face in Rochester,
whether it's the construction of the transit
mall, which the City of Rochester is now on
board and putting forward -- I think that's an
idea that I believe will be in the betterment
of our community, and I'm willing to put aside
my skepticism and move down that road.
The question of the fast ferry,
which we also talked about, I'm one of those
who at least at this point is not completely
convinced that the fast ferry will become a
reality. But nonetheless, I believe that the
renewed attention on the port, both on behalf
of the City of Rochester and the transit
authority, is a good thing. I would encourage
the transit authority, through its chair, to
8711
continue those negotiations, continue to move
down that path. Because Rochester has never
been able to quite unlock the treasure that
the Genesee River should be.
And, lastly, we talked about the
park-and-ride program. I'm encouraged to hear
that in this time of energy conservation that
that seems to be moving forward.
And with respect to the other issue
I raised -- that is, the purchase of homes in
the East Main section, which I actually share
in close proximity with Senator Alesi -- I
think the idea of combining the fleet services
and providing liquid natural gas and other
forms of alternative fuels for the fleets, not
only of the city buses, not only potentially
of the police department of the City of
Rochester, but county vehicles. And, frankly,
my hope would be that at some point we could
even get to the point of doing it for school
buses as well.
So I would encourage you with those
efforts. I think that despite our occasional
differences on the big policy issues, I think
Bill Nojay has done a job as the chairman of
8712
the transit authority that merits my vote and
the vote of my constituents. And although we
may have disagreements in the future, I think
a principled disagreement between people
trying to do the right thing for a community
is the foundation of our government and
actually produces, in the long run, the best
result.
So wherever we meet again, I wish
you well. And whether it's in agreement or
disagreement, it's good to have someone there
who has intelligence, skill, and vision. And
I welcome your appointment.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
question is on the confirmation of William
Nojay as a member of the board of the
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
nominee is hereby confirmed.
8713
Mr. Nojay, I wish you the best of
luck and congratulations and extend all the
courtesies of the Senate to you.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Transportation Committee in the Senate
Majority Room, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Transportation Committee in the Majority
Conference Room, Room 332.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
can we continue with the report of the Finance
Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Adirondack Park Agency, Katherine Osborn
Roberts, of Garrison.
As a director of the Municipal Bond
8714
Bank Agency, Michael J. Townsend, of Fairport.
As a member of the New York State
Project Finance Agency, John B. Mannix, of
New York City.
As a member of the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey, Bruce A. Blakeman,
of New York City.
As a member of the Administrative
Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct,
Stanley L. Grossman, M.D., of Newburgh.
As a member of the State Harness
Racing Commission, Mark A. Edelman, of
Monticello.
As a member of the Veterans Affairs
Commission, Harold Roy Andersen, of Jamestown.
As a member of the Medical Advisory
Committee, Ellen M. Vossler, D.D.S., of
Eggertsville.
As directors of the Municipal
Assistance Corporation for the City of
New York, Martin S. Berger, of New York City,
and Ann Daly Printon, of New York City.
As a member of the Board of
Directors of the New York Convention Center
Operating Corporation, Gregory F. Holcombe, of
8715
Bronxville.
As members of the Board of Trustees
of the New York State Higher Education
Services Corporation, Jason R. Clum, of
Germantown, and Frank Macchiarola, of Rockaway
Point.
As members of the Board of Visitors
of the New York State Home for Veterans and
Their Dependents at St. Albans, Donald H.
Haber, of Douglaston, and Denis J. McEneaney,
of Broad Channel.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the nominees. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just to
explain my vote on one of the nominees, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Michael J.
Townsend is the attorney who's been the
8716
counsel for the Monroe County Industrial
Development Agency. I know Mike well. I
think that he's extremely well qualified.
And I simply speak because even
though I know him well, I'm going to vote for
him. He would appreciate that comment. And I
wish him well in his new endeavor with the
mortgage agency.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominees are confirmed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
would you please call Calendar Number 514,
Senator Marchi's bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
514, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 1763, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to authorizing right on red in
Richmond County.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marchi, an explanation has been requested by
8717
the Acting Minority Leader, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President,
this is an old-timer. We've passed it several
times before. It would allow a turn on a red
light going with the stoplight, as we have
here and throughout the rest of the state.
However, there is a problem with
the City of New York. The City of New York,
unless it's posted specifically that you can
turn right, then you can't do it. So for the
purposes of uniformity, the city has opposed
the passage of this bill.
Nevertheless, the people of Staten
Island and my cosponsors have been -- have
been Democrats -- well, the entire membership
of the Staten Island Assembly delegation is in
favor of this bill to match us up with the
rest of the state. And it would accelerate
the movement of traffic, which everybody
recognizes, except for the difference it
presents with the rest of the city.
The City is in opposition, I will
state that for the record, and they have made
that known to me. City Council lately has
made a move in Staten Island's favor, but that
8718
is the present picture.
But I would suggest that we go
ahead with it. Perhaps we may get a
definitive disposition that carefully
considers the equities that are involved and
the depressing effects that it has on the
movement of traffic in Staten Island. Because
we are like the rest of the state. Our size
is almost equal to that of Manhattan and the
Bronx put together. But our population is at
400 -- I think, in the last census, 443,000
persons.
So I would request again -- and
hopefully something may happen in the
Assembly. But I would appreciate an
affirmative vote on this measure as we have
done repetitively in the past.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Gentile, why do you rise?
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, Mr.
President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
8719
President.
Certainly on this piece of
legislation introduced by Senator Marchi, I
come at this in a unique perspective, because
I not only come to this bill as a legislative
representative from Staten Island but also a
legislative representative from Brooklyn.
And certainly from that
perspective, Senator, I can see the difference
between the boroughs of the situation which
you try to address here in this bill with the
right on red in Staten Island. Certainly
Staten Island is unique, it is unique among
the five boroughs of the City of New York.
Indeed, Staten Island now has 440,000 people.
Brooklyn has 3 million plus.
So certainly those who are not
attuned to the special situation in Staten
Island might view it in terms of the other
four boroughs, which are far more populated
than the borough of Staten Island.
So I would agree that in a
community of 3 million, maybe right on red is
not such a great idea. But certainly in the
island, on Staten Island, I believe that it's
8720
worth a try, an opportunity. Those, yourself
included, who have looked at this issue for
many, many years have concluded that this is
something that should be done on Staten Island
to help the traffic flow. And anybody who has
traveled on Staten Island understands what
traffic flow can be sometimes on the roads
that we have available to us in Staten Island.
So, Senator, being the veteran that
you are in Staten Island, and my other
colleagues in Staten Island who will all
support this bill, I too will stand in support
of the right on red and urge my other
colleagues who might not understand the
special situation of Staten Island to concede
this one to us, that this is the right thing
for Staten Island.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, why do you rise?
SENATOR HEVESI: On the bill, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Mr. President, the residents of
8721
Staten Island are represented by two of the
most outstanding legislators in all of
New York in Senator Marchi and Senator
Gentile. They have ably represented their
constituents for a long time collectively and
do a wonderful job.
I must, however, disagree with them
on this particular piece of legislation as it
pertains to the overall public policy of
whether or not permitting right on red as
public policy in Staten Island is the
appropriate and smart thing to do.
I should like to point out that the
City of New York is opposed to this bill. And
specifically, the New York City Department of
Transportation does not believe that this is a
good idea and have submitted a memorandum in
opposition to this legislation, based simply
on the grounds that although there are many
differences between Staten Island and the
other boroughs in terms of population density
and some other areas that pertain to traffic
and traffic flow and the geometric shape of
the streets, that many signalized
intersections in Staten Island currently have
8722
right-on-red provisions but, DOT points out,
and I find this a most compelling argument,
that in all the locations where this is
currently permissible -- and in some areas it
does, in fact, reduce traffic flow and it is
appropriate -- in every single instance where
that was installed by the City DOT, it came
only after an extensive engineering and
traffic assessment by that agency. And that
should be the practice, I believe, that
continues.
And I have a little bit of a more
serious issue here. If we did decide to do
right on red throughout the entire city of
New York or anywhere else (a) it should only
come after the City does a study and
determines that that's appropriate. And (b) I
really don't think we should ever do it
piecemeal, because I don't want a situation
where drivers in one county drive into another
county.
In the case of Staten Island, the
counties are pretty well separated. But in
Brooklyn and Queens they're not. Sometimes I
actually have thought I was in Queens and it
8723
turns out I was in Brooklyn, because the
border is jagged.
And when that happens, if the
regulations have suddenly changed and somebody
makes a right on red or somebody doesn't
realize that cars may be turning that way
because they are from a different borough or
what have you, the lack of uniformity can
create a potential hazard there.
So I don't think it's appropriate
to do it piecemeal if it is appropriate, and
it might be. And I would support a study by
City DOT in order to determine the viability
and feasibility of doing this on a broader
scale. But if you're going to do it, do it in
a uniform way.
Until that time, I'm going to
oppose this legislation, notwithstanding the
fact that I very much appreciate the
expression and amplification of the voices of
Staten Island residents by both Senator
Gentile and Senator Marchi. They are doing
the best advocating for their constituents.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
8724
Hearing none, the Secretary will
read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
will you please call Calendar Number 970, by
Senator Hoffmann.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
970, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 84, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
inciting to rite in the first degree.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
8725
November.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson did you ask for an explanation?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, Mr.
President. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hoffmann, an explanation of Calendar Number
970 has been requested by Senator Paterson,
the Acting Minority Leader.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr.
President. And I would be happy to explain
this bill.
This is at the request of the
correction officers at the Mohawk Correctional
Facility, following a riot which involved 300
prisoners on July 18, 1997, in which ten
correction officers were injured, a couple of
them quite seriously.
This piece of legislation would
create two new felonies, riot in the first
degree and riot in the second degree. Riot in
the first degree may not be plea bargained
below a Class E felony under this piece of
legislation. The reason for the plea
8726
bargaining restriction would be so that those
who actually engage in a riot while in prison
walls would face additional time should they
be convicted, time beyond their current
sentence.
It might be a surprise to some
people to know, but currently the statute on
the books that deals with riot states that the
law around riot does not -- would not apply to
a prison because there must be conduct
creating, and I quote, a grave risk of causing
public alarm. So if a riot takes place now
within prison walls, the only impact is on the
staff and the other inmates of that facility,
because there is no, quote, public alarm.
So this particular legislation
would address two significant problems: One
that presently allows no severe penalties to
be enacted in the event of a riot; and, two,
to create a clear definition of riot, to
expand the definition to include a riot within
a correctional facility in New York State,
both which are very, very necessary.
I spent some time with the officers
at Mohawk Correctional Facility immediately
8727
after that riot. I was in contact with them
and with our very, very capable Commissioner
of Corrections, Glenn Goord, during the riot
itself. And these men and women, and the
other employees at Mohawk Correctional,
demonstrated the most exemplary conduct. They
were patient, they were cautious. They did
what their training prepares them to do and
demonstrated remarkable restraint in the face
of a situation that was life-threatening to
them.
Following that riot, however, they
were dismayed to discover that the inmates who
were responsible for the riot faced virtually
no kind of justice. There were no sanctions
imposed upon them other than the transfer to a
few other facilities. The instigators were
broken up, they were moved into other
correctional areas. But the reality was that
the very, very difficult job of law
enforcement in that prison situation was not
recognized by an appropriate penalty upon the
individuals who were responsible for
instigating that riot.
And I think it's significant that
8728
the men and women at Mohawk Correctional
Facility have asked for this bill. They've
been joined by their fellow officers in law
enforcement, under NYSCOBA, their union,
across the state in requesting that we correct
this inaccuracy, this inadequacy in our
statute.
So I'm happy to carry this bill.
I'm proud to tell you that it passed this
house the last two years overwhelmingly.
There is a bill in the other house
right now that's not identical, but I'm
confident that upon passage of this one that
we can reconcile those two bills.
Because I think we need to send a
message to our correctional officers in New
York State that we respect them, we value
their service, we applaud them for showing
restraint in the face of life-threatening
danger to themselves and other prison
employees and to other inmates, and we want
them to know that we will correct the law that
now did not permit the individuals who
perpetrated that riot at Mohawk Correctional
Facility on July 18th to be brought to justice
8729
appropriately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I voted for the bill in the past. And the
reason is because I think that the riot charge
in the law exists in its form now not because
we specifically wanted to exclude the prisons
from what the classification of a public alarm
would be as much as it was an omission.
So it's good to see that it's
expanded to include these types of situations.
These are public employees, and it is in a
sense a public alarm. Particularly if a riot
in this type of facility got out of hand
enough, it would be the fear of individuals
escaping from the facility.
I would like the record to reflect
that Senator Duane was recorded in the
negative last year, along with Senator
Montgomery. Senator Duane is excused today
and would want the record to reflect his vote.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
8730
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negative votes. Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
will you please call Calendar 1000, Senator
Rath's bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1000, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1450, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
falsely reporting.
8731
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, an explanation of Calendar Number 1000
has been requested by the Acting Minority
Leader, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President,
this bill adds six new sections relating to
falsely reporting an incident of use of a
weapon of mass destruction and placing a false
weapon of mass destruction. It really points
at and deals with the idea of chemical and
biological terrorism.
The law presently does not have any
provisions to deal with this exactly. I mean,
we keep hearing about placing a bomb or a bomb
threat. Well, there was a threat at one time
in a school fairly recently about an anthrax
threat. Well, it was a false threat. But of
course the local government showed up with the
full regalia, as they're required to do.
And fortunately, no one was hurt.
It was a false threat. It was a cost to the
local government. Had anyone been injured in
the process of responding, there would have
been additional costs and certainly some loss
8732
of work time and threat to life and limb.
So I feel at this point it's time
to place this in the correct context and urge
passage.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation
satisfactory.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Will you please
call Bill 1002, by Senator Lack.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1002, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 2164, an
act to amend the Correction Law, in relation
to information.
8733
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lack, an explanation of Calendar Number 1002
has been requested by the Acting Minority
Leader, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill would amend the Megan's
Law enactment we passed to change a "may" to
"shall" when it pertains to third level -
Level 3 sexually violent predators, that would
require local police departments, instead of
having the ability to disseminate information
with respect to the sexual offender's address
and photograph, to requiring them to
disseminate such information. As well as the
only other change would add "alias."
This bill passed the Senate last
year 59 to 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Lack would yield for a question.
SENATOR RATH: Senator Lack, do
you yield to a question from Senator Paterson?
8734
SENATOR LACK: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, would
you clarify something for us? Is Level 3 the
most serious or the least serious offense
covered in the act?
SENATOR LACK: Most.
SENATOR PATERSON: The most.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
will you call Bill 1020, by Senator McGee.
8735
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1020, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3965, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to the tax exemption.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
McGee, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you very
much.
This bill is a technical amendment
to Chapter 609 of the Laws of the year 2000.
Due to an oversight, the word "city" was
omitted from three appropriate places of
Chapter 609, line 00. This bill corrects that
oversight.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, why do you rise?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Will the sponsor please yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
McGee, do you yield to a question from Senator
Hevesi?
8736
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Just so I'm clear on this, this is
a technical correction to a bill we passed
last year, it became a chapter, which provides
this one county the ability to provide for any
locality within the county -- and now we're
going to include cities -- the ability to
provide a property tax exemption for anyone
who is a member of a volunteer fire-fighting
company or ambulance company; is that correct?
SENATOR McGEE: That's correct.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. Mr.
President, would the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
McGee, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR McGEE: Absolutely. Yes,
I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. My
8737
concern -- and I very much appreciate making
that type of technical correction. Because if
it was a good idea to do it for everybody in
the county, it should include cities.
My question to you, and it is
germane to this discussion on this bill, is my
understanding is that the City of New York is
not able in its discretion to provide a
property tax exemption to the same individuals
who are covered under the existing chapter and
obviously, by extension, this bill.
Is that your understanding also?
SENATOR McGEE: I'm not sure what
happens with the City of New York. You
represent the City of New York, sir.
This was a request made by
Chautauqua County, several legislators in
Chautauqua County, in view of the fact that
there is a decreasing number of volunteers in
volunteer fire-fighting units throughout
Chautauqua County. They have taken
appropriate steps and asked to have this done.
It's been done. This bill merely
makes a technical correction to the chapter
that's already in place.
8738
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Mr. President, would the sponsor
continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
McGee, do you yield to another question from
Senator Hevesi?
SENATOR McGEE: Before I yield,
Mr. President, I'd like to announce an
immediate meeting of the Transportation
Committee in Room 328.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
will be an immediate meeting of the
Transportation Committee, immediate -
SENATOR McGEE: I'm sorry, may I
correct myself. It was the Committee on
Labor.
Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Committee
on Labor, immediate meeting of the Committee
on Labor in Room 328.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
Yes, Senator Hevesi.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: And
8739
Senator McGee yields to a question from you,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator McGee, the original chapter
that was passed provided this exemption
without naming the county, but did it by
delineating the population requirements of
those who would be included under the law.
And the original chapter included any locality
with a population of more than 133,000 and
less than 141,000.
My question to you is, since we
have seen other bills of this nature with
those very specific population delineations
intended to include in the catchment of the
provisions of this bill very specific areas,
would you have any objection to voting in
favor of a piece of legislation that also
provided it to anybody else, any county in the
state of New York, not excluding anybody?
SENATOR McGEE: In answer to a
question such as that, Senator Hevesi, let me
say this. I always say to the individual who
asks a question on any proposed legislation
8740
which I have not seen, I certainly would keep
that in mind when I read the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. Thank
you. Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
I'm going to vote for this bill,
Mr. President, but only because this bill is a
technical correction to a chapter that we
passed last year that was obviously deficient.
But I would like to point out, Mr.
President, that if this legislation was the
initial enabling legislation such as we saw
last year, I would vote against it. And I'm
going to vote against any other bill that
comes before us that on a piecemeal basis
seeks to provide an obviously prudent benefit
to members of volunteer fire-fighting and
ambulance companies throughout the state, for
the simple reason that the exclusion of
everyone else is unfair, flat out unfair.
And I don't understand why, as
policy in New York State, we don't provide the
discretion to every single county within the
8741
State of New York the ability, based
presumably on the local finances and the
ability of each local county to finance this
type of a tax break, why don't we give them
the discretion to go ahead and do it, instead
of saying, We'll give it to this county or
that county, and by definition exclude
everybody else.
And I just want to point out,
because we had -- Senator Rath had a bill on
this last year, and I raised the exact same
objections. In New York City, despite the
perception that's out there, and I think we
went a long way to correcting it last year, we
have volunteer ambulance companies in New York
City, many of them. And we have, shockingly,
volunteer fire-fighting companies, despite the
fact that in New York City we have a
professional fire-fighting and a professional
ambulance corps and now the ambulance system
is within the FDNY. It was merged a number of
years ago. It used to be a separate EMS
service.
But let me repeat for the record,
New York City has volunteer fire-fighting
8742
companies, New York City has volunteer
ambulance companies. And if it's good enough
to provide a benefit to counties throughout
New York State such as the county represented
so ably by Senator McGee and the one
represented by Senator Rath last year, then I
certainly think it's fair to allow New York
City, in its discretion, with the City Council
voting and the advice and consent of the mayor
of New York City, if they so chose, to give
this benefit to individuals who are performing
this terrific service for the residents of
New York City -- and, by the way, of Nassau
County and Suffolk and Orange and Rockland and
Putnam and every other county in the state.
So I'm going to vote for this bill
because the technical amendment, the
correction that we're making, is prudent.
Last year's chapter, irrespective of whether I
would have voted for that, last year's chapter
should have included cities, because that's
just an oversight. So I'm going to vote for
this.
But in the future, I will vote
against any bill that does this on a piecemeal
8743
basis. Every single person in New York State
should have the potential benefit, if the
municipality in which they reside chooses to
bestow that benefit upon anybody serving all
the residents of that constituency, that
community, by being a volunteer ambulance
employee or a volunteer firefighter.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the same date as
Chapter 609 of the Laws of 2000.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar 521, by
Senator Nozzolio.
8744
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
521, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3703,
an act to amend the Executive Law and others,
in relation to access to records.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, an explanation of Calendar Number
521 has been requested by the Acting Minority
Leader, Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
Mr. President and my colleagues,
Calendar Number 521 is an act to amend the
Executive Law, the Criminal Procedure Law, the
Family Court Act, and the Social Services Law,
in relation to the access of records.
This measure was introduced at the
request of the Crime Victims Board. And I, as
chairman of the Crime Victims, Crime and
Corrections Committee, offer this measure to
provide the Crime Victims Board access to
sealed records -- that's Family Court records,
records maintained by the statewide central
8745
registry of child abuse and maltreatment -
for the sole purpose of enabling the Crime
Victims Board to investigate claims for crime
victims' compensation.
The current law provides the board
with the power to request assistance from data
to DCJS and others. But there are victims
across our state who are not eligible for
compensation from the Crime Victims Fund
because, because of the particular nature of
the crime involved, their identities are
understandably, and by actions of this
Legislature, in records which are sealed.
This opens that seal for
verification by the Crime Victims Board for
compensation purposes only, provides the
recipient, provides the victim the opportunity
to be a recipient of funds from the Crime
Victims Compensation Board.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, why do you rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, I would like to ask a question for
clarification.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
8746
Nozzolio, do you yield to a question from
Senator Montgomery?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
Senator Nozzolio -- through you, Mr.
President -- are we unsealing the records of
noncriminal activities that have been sealed?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And again
through you, Mr. President, if I can -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you continue to yield to a
question from Senator Montgomery?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And are we
now going into the records of Family Court as
well? Is this a new level of exposure for
unsealed records?
8747
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
to answer Senator Montgomery's question, the
answer is yes.
And the reason for that, Senator
Montgomery, is that often the victims of
individuals who are adjudicated through the
Family Court are victims that would be
qualified otherwise for compensation by the
Crime Victims Compensation Fund but in many
cases are denied that compensation, in effect
because verification of that victimization
could not take place.
That Family Court has a specific
purpose. Certainly the purpose is to
adjudicate matters of individuals who have not
reached a certain age, who are not under the
normal criminal justice system.
The fact of the matter is, though,
that the victims are victims regardless of how
old the perpetrator of that crime was. And a
loophole existed in the law, in a sense, by
having records sealed at the Family Court
level. Those who are victimized by
individuals who are adjudicated by the Family
Court are out of luck in the sense of getting
8748
any type of compensation.
That's why we believe it necessary
here to open up those Family Court records for
this specific purpose only.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. Mr.
President, I would like to continue, if you
would allow me to ask another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you continue to yield to a
question from Senator Montgomery?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President, I continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
So, Senator Nozzolio, we seem to be
saying here, with your legislation, the intent
that you have is to, no matter what the
consequences of the court action for a
juvenile at some age -- maybe 12, 13, 14 -
and we now have a victim, quote, unquote, who
wants to be compensated for whatever happened,
that person will be able to approach the Crime
8749
Victims Board and the board will be allowed to
unseal the records of that person who was
maybe, twenty years ago, 13 when something
happened and had the records seal in court.
Is that where we're going with this
legislation?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, through you.
Let me clarify that this
legislation opens the window of those
previously sealed records for the sole,
exclusive purpose of ascertaining who is
victimized in this particular circumstance so
that victim could receive compensation from
the Crime Victims Compensation Fund.
Victims don't have the choice of
being victimized. They may be victimized by
someone who is older and subjected to the
normal court procedures, or they may be a
victim of a younger criminal who is not under
such jurisdiction, is under the jurisdiction
of Family Court.
It should not matter for the
victim's purposes what court they are -- the
matter their perpetrator is adjudicated under.
8750
It should only matter that their victimization
should be recorded and transferred to the
Crime Victims Board so that compensation can
be achieved.
It is not a blanket opening of that
record, Madam President. It is not a opening
of the record for any other purpose but to
ascertain who is victimized so that the Crime
Victims Board can apply the proper,
appropriate compensation under the statute.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, just one last question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Nozzolio, is there -- I may have overlooked
it. Is there any statute of limitations in
your legislation? In other words, is there
any point beyond which the Victims Board
absolutely will not have access to this
information based on a limitation, time
8751
limitation?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, the Crime Victims Compensation
Board has certain limitations in and of
itself. I cannot indicate any additional
statute of limitations placed on this statute.
The Crime Victims Board, though, itself has
limitations that it must be guided under.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you.
Madam President, just briefly on
the legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I see
that the legislation has been before us a
number of times. And we certainly -- many of
us have voted no in the past, at least some of
us. And I will continue to vote no on this
legislation.
I think that there is a specific
reason for the state having the Family Court
proceedings be allowed to be sealed, in
addition to some other kinds of activities,
where there is an agreement that in certain
8752
cases records of young people can be sealed.
And it is, I think, a very
dangerous opening of this sacred agreement
between the state criminal justice system and
people that it serves to begin to open this up
for any reason, at any time, which this bill
does.
Anyone who comes before the Crime
Victims Board vis-a-vis this legislation would
be able to request that a person's records,
juvenile records, Family Court records could
be unsealed for what may or may not be a
purpose related to that victim's claim. And I
just think that we should not be doing this.
I am going to continue to vote no.
And I would like to remind my
colleagues who have voted no in the past -
well, myself and Senator Duane, who is not
here today. I'm sure that were he here today,
he would continue to vote no as well.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Malcolm
Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes,
thank you, Madam President. Through you,
8753
Madam President, if the Senator would yield
just for quick question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee.
Excuse me, Senator Smith.
SENATOR McGEE: Please pardon the
interruption, but I would like to call an
immediate meeting of the Corporations,
Authorities and Commissions Committee in
Room 328.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Corporations,
Authorities and Commissions Committee in
Room 328.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Senator Nozzolio, will you yield
for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you, Madam President.
Through you, Madam President, just
some clarity. Do I understand the bill as the
8754
sponsor has offered it that the Crime Victims
Board can petition the court on its own to
unseal the records, thereby no longer needing
judicial intervention for this?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you for
your indulgence, Senator.
Madam President, that the process
is no different than the Crime Victims Board
now must exert in obtaining a particular
record. There is no additional sanction that
this unseals those records upon application of
the Crime Victims Board.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Just one
final question, Madam President, through you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
will you yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Just my
colleague Senator Montgomery asked the
question; I believe there was an answer
offered. However, you stated that the Crime
Victims Board has its own limitations on it
8755
when she asked the question about the statute
of limitations as relates to the unsealing of
these records, which I think is a viable
question.
The concern that she has is the
same as I have, which is there shouldn't be
some infinite number as to the number of years
in which the Crime Victims Board can actually
unseal these records. And then you stated
that there is the normal limitations that the
Crime Victims Board has. My only question is,
what limitations are those?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, the Senator's question is extremely
appropriate. And let me answer it this way.
That, Senator, the limitations of
the Crime Victims Board are primarily
limitations of financial circumstance, in the
sense that the funds of the Crime Victims
Board are all too limited.
That those limitations in effect
drive the Crime Victims Board to try to deal
with those most immediate and egregious
circumstances. They don't have the resources
to engage in long-term reviews in terms of
8756
retrospective reviews. They need most
priority to focus on those current
applications before them. And they deal with
those in a timely fashion.
I do not have the exact amount of
time that you may be seeking. However, that's
likely to be in statute that we are amending.
And that, frankly, the board is most limited
by the amount of resources available to them
and thus available to crime victims.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator
Smith, please proceed on the bill.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: I thank
Senator Nozzolio for what is normally his very
astute explanation on legislation that he's
putting forward.
The concern that I do have, though,
is the same as Senator Montgomery raised. And
that is, is there a fixed statute of
limitations as to how long these -- I should
say the particular individual's background can
be offered up by petitioners through the Crime
8757
Victims Board?
I understand his explanation as it
relates to the Crime Victims Board's
limitations around the finances available to
handle the matter. The unfortunate thing is
the way the legislation reads now -- and I
haven't seen the amendment -- is that it seems
that there's an infinite amount of time in
which one's background can be unsealed by
virtue of being petitioned by the Crime
Victims Board.
And I think that is a problem
inherent and that it would cause some
difficulty for youngsters. Just as my
colleague pointed out, 12 years old today, 20
years old eight years from now, and their
records are unsealed for something that
occurred when they were at a minor age and
unclear about what it is they were doing and
why.
So with that, I'm going to have to
vote no on the bill this year, because I just
think not being able to have a limitation as
to when one's records can be unsealed is just
a little bit too much discretion for me.
8758
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 9. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
negative on Calendar Number 521 are Senators
Brown, Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, and M.
Smith. Ayes, 52. Nays, 4.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Madam President,
would you kindly lay aside for the day
Calendar Number 651, by Senator Maziarz.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
SENATOR McGEE: And would you
kindly call Calendar Number 1019, by Senator
Volker.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
8759
will read Calendar 1019.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1019, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3865, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law and
the Family Court Act, in relation to the
duration of orders of protection.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: An explanation
has been requested, Senator Volker. Thank you
for your promptness.
SENATOR VOLKER: Thank you.
Madam President, this bill, which
is introduced at the request of various
organizations, and I believe also by the City
of New York -- yes, it's the City of New York,
and I think backed by a number of activist
organizations, and relates to the duration of
orders of protection.
One of the things that's been
occurring, and I don't think anybody in this
chamber has to be told, is that there has been
considerable violence in certain cases as
orders of protection are expiring. And the
rules on orders of protection are somewhat
8760
limited.
And what this bill would do is
provide for aggravating circumstances; that
is, circumstances where orders of protection
are not allowed to lapse in the way in which
the law now states -- I think it's something
like one to five years, generally speaking -
and would allow in certain cases for extended
orders of protection to protect, well,
primarily women from people who are
particularly worrisome people.
One of the things that apparently
has happened is that the spouses or people who
are part of the household go to jail, and the
order of protection in the meantime expires.
The person leaves jail -- without the
knowledge, in fact, of the person who has the
order of protection -- and immediately
assaults or confronts the person who was the
subject of the order of protection. That
person tries to again get an order of
protection, but in many cases is unable to do
so or it's too late or whatever, they can't go
through the process.
So what this would attempt to do is
8761
provide the courts with the maximum discretion
in appropriate cases to issue orders of
protection for a fixed period of time, and
beyond that which was currently authorized for
a permanent order of protection.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, just one question or clarification
for me.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Volker, I'm trying to understand what actually
a permanent order of protection means. Does
that mean for the rest of your life, or how
does that work?
SENATOR VOLKER: You know,
Senator, it could mean that. Because it
depends on the type of order, now that these
records are unlimited. And remember that,
with certain people who have a history of
8762
violence and have made -- in some cases done
multiple assaults or multiple attempts.
The problem is that if you set up a
limited order of protection, you'd have to
keep checking to find out, for instance, if
they're out of jail, in some cases, or if
they're in the area or whatever.
And what this bill attempts to
do -- and the City of New York, as I say, has
suggested this, as well as, I think, a bar
group, if I'm not mistaken, and some of the
activist groups -- is give this flexibility to
judges in certain cases to provide longer-term
orders of protection, so that the dangers of
when the orders of protection are lapsing
don't occur in certain very, very serious
cases.
Now, you know, clearly, if there's
an abuse here, you could appeal to the court
to have it relieved. But what this does is
give more flexibility to judges to make those
decisions.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Another
question to Senator Volker, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
8763
will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Volker, on a related issue, in addition to
providing a permanent order of protection,
which I certainly agree in some instances may
be warranted based on the threat to a person,
is there any other protection that goes along
with the order of protection? Which in many
instances has very little meaning, especially
in cases of domestic violence where people
seem to violate them no matter how long they
are or how severe.
SENATOR VOLKER: Not in this
bill, Senator. But you make a good point.
And I think what we've been trying
to do is with the mandatory arrest provisions
and with a number of the provisions that this
house has been passing -- and some of them
have been passed in the other house -- is an
attempt to protect people from particularly
vicious people who seem at times to take
advantage of the law, so to speak.
8764
This bill doesn't provide any more,
although it sets out the circumstances in
the -- I think it's Article 8 of the Family
Court Act, which is already there, but
specifies that it gives the judge more
authority to make these decisions.
But you're absolutely correct, this
bill does not in itself provide any more
protection other than the protection of the
law itself and that you can use this statute
to provide protection.
But the criminal law in many cases
is the only alternative. And I think probably
we will have to continue to look at increasing
some of those standards to protect people from
people who would attack them.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Senator Volker.
Madam President, just briefly on
the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I think that
this is certainly a very good bill. We need
to provide for judges, in instances where it's
8765
necessary, the option of permanent or longer
extended orders of protection.
I do, however, caution -- and
certainly I'm happy that Senator Volker agrees
that we need to consider measures which give
more than just a false sense of protection and
security, which very often is the case with
orders of protection. They do not protect
women, especially in cases of domestic
violence where the person who seeks to injure
or abuse a spouse or a person that they want
to injure violates the order of protection and
injures, severely injures or kills another
person.
So I'm certainly agreeing with this
legislation, and I would look forward to
working with Senator Volker on seeing in what
ways we can provide even more genuine
protection for women, especially in domestic
violence cases.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard?
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
8766
you, Madam President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Just
to support and echo the concerns addressed by
Senator Montgomery, that while certainly I
support the efforts of Senator Volker and this
bill, I think that there are more things that
we need to look at and investigate in terms of
how do we ensure true protection for women
beyond just the order of protection.
And so that at such time as the
Senator begins that dialogue, I too would like
to volunteer to be supportive of helping with
language that would better incorporate some of
the concerns that need to be addressed around
domestic violence.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
8767
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Will you please
recognize Senator Montgomery.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on the following
bills: Calendar Number 114 and Calendar
Number 651.
THE PRESIDENT: Hearing no
objection, Senator, you will be so recorded as
voting in the negative.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Madam President,
will you please call Calendar Number 1023.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 1023.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1023, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 4838,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law and
others, in relation to certain actions.
8768
SENATOR McGEE: Please lay the
bill aside for the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day, Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Madam President,
will you please call Calendar Number 1026, by
Senator Volker.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 1026.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1026, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 5385, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, the
Correction Law, and the Criminal Procedure
Law, in relation to the civil commitment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, I can
start out by saying this is a very simple
bill, but I would not be telling the truth.
It is not a very simple bill.
This is a Governor's program bill
that has passed this house, I believe, several
times before. And as far as I can determine,
it is the same bill as passed this house I
8769
believe last year or the year before. I
haven't got the papers here, but I know it did
pass once before.
The Governor has proposed several
civil commitment bills. By that I mean that
he initially proposed one I think about four
years ago, after our committee, the Codes
Committee and myself, had proposed a bill of
our own. These bills came after the Supreme
Court of the United States upheld a process
called civil commitment for the state of -
one of the states, I can't remember whether it
was Wisconsin or -- I don't remember anymore.
And this bill -- the bill that we
had had, and this bill, is based on the civil
commitment statute that the state -- I believe
it was -- Kansas? Kansas, thank you. State
of Kansas. The bills are beginning to move
together, as the saying goes -- the state of
Kansas.
And there is another Senator in
this house who's not here right now who had
bet that another state statute would be
upheld, and she was wrong. So I was right.
We had determined at one point, we looked it
8770
over and we decided that we thought the Kansas
statute would be upheld.
And actually, my former counsel,
now counsel to DCJS, Ken Connolly, originally
drafted a bill for me before he left to go to
the Governor's office. And the ironic twist
is he also drafted this bill, now that he is,
of course, counsel to DCJS.
But in any case, this is the bill
that has passed this house on several
occasions. It sets up a process when you're
dealing with so-called sexually violent
predators, people who have for the most part
been repetitive sexually violent people. And
the way the process works, there is a set
process in the bill that follows down 120 days
before a person is to be released who is
considered under -- if that person was
committed under Article 7030 of Criminal
Procedure Law, then a petition would be filed
which would designate that this person could
be considered to be a sexually violent
predator.
That would trip, then, a process
whereby the person would be evaluated by a
8771
psychiatrist, would then be submitted to the
evidence, and the person himself could be
submitted to a multidisciplinary panel
established by Commissioner of Corrections, in
consultation with the Commissioner of Mental
Health and Mental Retardation.
And they would set up a panel to
determine a recommendation as to whether this
person should be referred, and I think it's
within 30 days -- they make a recommendation
to whether the person is to be considered a
sexually violent predator. Their
recommendation would go a prosecutor's review
committee.
And if that review committee
decides that that person should be held, then
the person would be recommended or would be
assigned for what in effect is a trial or a
hearing to determine whether that person
should be held in custody after the
termination of that term.
The person would be allowed an
evaluation again if he should so desire, he or
she, and would also be allowed counsel, would
have the right to counsel. And there would be
8772
a hearing which would determine, I believe
it's by probable cause, initially, whether
this person should be brought before the panel
and should be tried.
But then this bill does what was
not necessarily -- the Supreme Court did not
say that at the trial it would have to be
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the
respondent or the defendant is a sexually
violent predator. But the Governor agreed
with our committee's determination that
because of the seriousness of this sort of
situation that the trial should be beyond a
reasonable doubt.
So a determination after a trial or
a hearing that a person is a sexually violent
predator and therefore should be kept in
custody must be made by reasonable doubt, just
as, in effect, it is in a standard trial. If
that is so, the person is then referred to the
Commissioner of Mental Hygiene and would be
held by Mental Hygiene.
And there have already been plans,
should that happen, as to where these people
would be held, in a separate part of a
8773
facility, of several facilities. They're
secured facilities; that is, highly secured
facilities.
Their civil commitment would be
reviewed each year to determine whether they
continue to be a danger to society. And they
have the rights to counsel, as I say. They
have the rights to mental health counseling
and so forth. And it's assumed, and I -- more
than assumed, they would get whatever
treatment is necessary at a mental health
facility.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will yield for
just a couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
do you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
first of all, I appreciate that explanation.
I listened carefully, and I think you hit just
about every high point in this bill.
8774
My question is, does this bill
differ in any detail from the prior bills that
we've passed that deal with civil confinement?
I know this is the Governor's program bill.
And we've done a number of comparable bills.
SENATOR VOLKER: Right.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But my
question is, how does this bill differ from
the other versions of civil confinement that
we've done?
SENATOR VOLKER: In all honesty,
it is -- I would have to say that the
Governor's people should be complimented for
improving this bill from the standpoint of
protections and filling in some of the blanks,
as I call it, from the times when we initially
drafted civil commitment laws.
This really is -- is it different,
for instance, from the last one we passed
here? No, essentially it is the same, with
possibly some rereferenced sections and so
forth.
But it is different from the
original bills that we sponsored, because
actually it provides more protection, I think,
8775
for the respondents -- not the defendants,
necessarily, because these people are already
convicted, and they're respondents -- and
actually clarifies in many ways how the
process would work, who is supposed to take
care of certain aspects of it, and further
clarifies -- I believe the initial bills
talked about rules and regulations set by the
Corrections Department and also by Mental
Health. And what this does basically is lay
it right out as to exactly how the process
would go.
So the answer is it is essentially
the initial process that we set up, but with
clarification as to exactly how the process
would occur.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, just briefly on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I actually
think Senator Volker is absolutely correct
about the drafting of this bill. We have
dealt with other versions of this concept
previously. But at least in my reading of
8776
this bill quickly here, this is the best and I
think the fairest draft of a civil confinement
bill that I've seen.
There are some minor objections to
it, but they're more systemic objections than
they are anything else. One is I think we
should do this with a firm understanding,
Senator Volker, as I'm sure you can appreciate
as an attorney, that this could be potentially
very expensive, from the point of view not
only of providing counsel for the sexually
violent predator -- and I think it's always
important, Senator Volker, as I'm sure you
agree, this is someone who has already been
sentenced and completely fulfilled whatever
sentence obligation has been imposed on them
by a court.
This is someone who we are civilly
confining who has really done nothing wrong
for which they have not already paid the price
that society extracts on them. These are
people who, based on our social science, we
are convinced are sexually violent predators,
and that that state alone makes them a risk to
society for which we have the power to confine
8777
them. That means that they are not accused of
doing anything specific. They are, in
essence, being determined to be a danger to
society because of who they are.
That is a concept, as I know,
Senator Volker, you're well aware, that is new
to our law. We have generally not allowed
people to be confined simply because of who
they are. We have in some instances allowed
civil confinement because people are a danger
to themselves or a danger to others, most
often in the mental health area in the past.
So this is a new thing that we're
doing, and I think we should recognize that it
will be expensive. The procedure that we set
up here, in order to be fair, these are people
who will not have access to private counsel,
these will not be appealing respondents or
defendants. But nonetheless, these are people
who have the right to a fair and honest
examination of their psychology and their
personal predilections, not only as a prelude
to being confined, but at any time during
their confinement.
So I would suspect that this bill
8778
will have a significant price tag in terms of
additional resources that the courts need to
put to bear, district attorneys will need to
put it to bear, and the Attorney General will
put it to bear.
And the other flaw that I
mentioned, Senator Volker, and I know it's one
that you're very well aware of, and perhaps at
this stage is unavoidable, is that we have to
rely on the 18B reimbursement rates to allow
individuals to have the assistance of counsel
in these determinations.
Senator Volker, I think you agree
with us, and we've been working on trying to
cure that. The rate of reimbursement under
Section 18B of the Judiciary Law is, in my
opinion, grossly inadequate. $25 an hour for
out-of-court time, $40 an hour for in-court
time is not enough to get a competent
attorney.
And, Senator Volker, this bill
talks about establishing beyond a reasonable
doubt certain psychiatric testimony which will
require the preparation of experts, the
cross-examination of experts, the
8779
cross-examination of representatives of the
Attorney General's office and those who have
been involved in the criminal confinement of
sexually violent predators, all of which I
believe is a high level of legal skill.
To reimburse that at the rate of
$25 an hour for out-of-court time and $40 for
in-court time means that we will, in essence,
not be able to attract, in my opinion, any
type of quality legal talent to represent
these individuals in these cases. And if we
can't get quality legal representation, we in
essence make civil confinement even more
onerous, because those who are confined will
not have the access to the legal skill and
expertise to present their case in the best
fashion.
Madam President, I've voted for the
civil commitment of sexually violent predators
before. I'm going to vote for it again. But
I do think that we need a fair examination of
the overall cost, and we've got to be prepared
to pay it. And, even more importantly, in
order to balance the scales of justice, we
have to look during this budget cycle at the
8780
18B problem. Because if we don't, we are in
essence allowing extended confinement of
people who have committed no crime.
And while I understand the need to
protect society from sexually violent
predators, it seems to me that every American
ought to recoil and be very, very cautious
before we confine anyone for who they are and
not what they did. And that's the danger in
this. I'm willing to tolerate that with the
protections built in here.
But my hope would be that when we
cure the 18B problem, we'll do it and make
this civil confinement fair, justifiable, one
that will protect society and balance a
protection for individual rights as well.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard?
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR GENTILE: On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
8781
on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President.
My colleague Senator Dollinger's
concerns are certainly well taken,
particularly concerning the 18B reimbursement
rates. In a situation like this, I agree,
Senator Dollinger, that we need the best
representation possible in these situations.
However, I have to say that from
the perspective of a former prosecutor, I
think I have lost count -- during the time
that I prosecuted sex crimes, I think I lost
count over the number of times I have
encountered a defendant in a sex crime that,
when you looked at his or her criminal record,
the so-called New York State rap sheet, how
many times that person would have had other
sexual arrests and convictions on that rap
sheet.
And that is a common occurrence
among those in the State of New York and, in
my case, the City of New York who have
prosecuted sex crimes and have run into
defendants who have been repeat offenders in
8782
this area.
So this civil commitment bill is
certainly something that is a step in
protecting those future victims of those
people who will continue to commit these types
of crimes.
We only have to look to last
weekend in the Staten Island newspapers. The
Staten Island newspapers on Saturday had a
headline that said "Sex Offender Back in
Jail." And this was a Staten Islander who
is -- a 30-year-old Staten Islander who was
convicted of sodomizing a 6-year-old on Staten
Island, served his sentence, and then was
released and failed to comply with Megan's Law
and absconded from the period of January
through last weekend. He could not be found.
And when they did find him, where
did they find this person? They found him
near a school and near an athletic field on
Staten Island. And he was arrested at that
point based on some tips that were given.
Luckily, nothing has occurred that
we know of in the time that he absconded and
violated his provisions under Megan's Law.
8783
However, had we Senator Volker's
bill in effect at the time that this Staten
Islander, this pedophile who was about to be
released upon the completion of his sentence,
had we Senator's Volker statute in law, this
person would have been evaluated under the
civil commitment provisions under this bill
and, if found to be a continuing danger to the
people of Staten Island or the people anywhere
in the state of New York, he would have been
given -- he would have served possibly a civil
commitment, and he would not have been on the
streets of Staten Island, he would not have
been in the schoolyard, the playground where
he was ultimately found.
And so I think that is an example
of the types of protections that Senator
Volker's bill seeks to provide future victims
of individuals like this that may indeed have
that kind of history of continually committing
these crimes.
This is a good bill. This is a
bill that the people of the state of New York
need for protection against individuals of
this type. And up to now, the district
8784
attorneys of this state have not been able to
do more than ultimately ask for a most severe
sentence in these cases. Now, given these
provisions, they will be allowed to then seek
that civil commitment.
Senator Volker, this is a step in
the right direction for the protection of the
people of the state of New York. And
certainly I believe that the due process
provisions that you put in here also protects
those who are sought to be civilly committed.
So it works on both ends. And I think this is
a magnificent bill, something that not only
should this house pass but the other house
too.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
if I might just speak briefly on the bill.
You know, I very honestly confess
that it did not dawn on me until Senator
Dollinger brought up the 18B provision that
he's absolutely right. And by not dawning on
me, I mean in relation just directly to this
bill. But it would be very difficult.
8785
The 18B issue is something we
really must deal with. For those of you that
are not aware, it's an issue of assigned
counsels. Now, in this area it would be
especially a problem because of the complexity
that would be involved.
And I will commit to Senator
Dollinger and everybody here that if this bill
should be on its way to becoming law -- and
we've had some difficulty in the other
house -- we will find a way, and although I
can't officially speak for the Governor, I
think I can speak for the Governor in saying
we will find a way to make sure that people
are paid -- just as we did, very honestly,
under the death penalty, where we were
concerned and we set up a process for that -
we'll find a way to make sure that the lawyers
for the people involved here who could have
their liberties taken away from them are
properly paid.
Even if we are not able to deal
with the 18B issue this year, if this should
become law I can assure everybody that we will
find a way to make sure that these people are
8786
properly represented and that the lawyers that
represent them are properly paid.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just a second time on the bill.
I greatly appreciate Senator
Volker's comments. I think he clearly
understands how difficult it will be to
recruit counsel at those rates.
And I've said this before, I voted
against the death penalty. I'd do it again.
But I will say one thing about Senator Volker,
the death penalty statute that we passed, at
least in the experience in Monroe County,
where we've had three death prosecutions, in
my opinion as an observer, they have been
provided with quality representation because
we are paying a market rate for that
representation.
And it seems to me that if we want
to make sure that the pendulum, which I'm
sure, as Senator Volker knows, when you're an
accused looks so massive against you -- when
you have the district attorney, the attorney
8787
general, all the prior records, all the
evidence, the police, the psychiatrists
looming against your individual right -- it's
somewhat comforting to know you've got a
lawyer who's going to be paid at a reasonable
rate to be your advocate to defend your right
to oppose the government imposing, in this
instance, a sanction against you because of
who you are and not what you've done.
And it seems to me that because we
are doing something in this instance that
represents noncriminal activity that we owe it
to people to make sure that they get that fair
representation.
And, Senator Volker, you're
absolutely right, that I think these will be
ugly, difficult, complicated, terribly complex
cases. And only by giving fair reimbursement
for the attorneys that are hired to represent
these individuals can we make sure that the
power of government does not overstep its
bounds.
This bill as drafted I think is a
fair balance. But we won't get to a complete
balance until we have proper representation
8788
for those who are not accused of a crime but
simply accused of a thinking process or an
inclination or a predilection that would be
dangerous to others. I think we have to be
extremely careful. With fair market counsel
rates, I think we can get there.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 12. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Madam President,
I would ask that the Senate stand at ease for
a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate stands
at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
8789
ease at 2:13 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 2:15 p.m.)
SENATOR McGEE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Would you
recognize Senator Volker for a moment, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
just for one second. I would like to remind
everybody that tomorrow morning at 8 o'clock
the annual memorial service for deceased
members of both the Senate and Assembly will
be held at St. Mary's Church at Lodge and Pine
Streets, if any of you can get there.
For those of you that are new,
there's been a tradition here for a memorial
service. It is an ecumenical service. We
have a rabbi, we have the bishop of -- the
Catholic bishop of Albany, and also a
Protestant -- the executive director of the
Capital Area Council of Churches will be
there. And it has become a tradition here.
And we'd appreciate anybody that
could arrive there. And also afterwards we
8790
would then have a short breakfast at the
Albany Room in the LOB.
Thank you.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
would you recognize Senator Morahan, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, I
will.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President. I wish to call up my bill, Print
2878A, recalled from the Assembly, which is
now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
878, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 2878A,
an act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which the
bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
8791
I now offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
on page 21, I offer the following amendments
to Calendar 459, Senate Print 2830, and I ask
that this retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar. And that's on behalf of
Senator Volker.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
on behalf of Senator Goodman, on page 27, I
offer the following amendments to Calendar
563, Senate Print Number 3972, and ask that
said bill retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
8792
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you so
much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
would you please recognize Senator M. Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Malcolm Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes,
thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 114.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Malcolm Smith will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 114.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Would you
recognize Senator Hassell-Thompson, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
8793
you. Mr. President, I wish to request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar 114 and Calendar 651.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Hassell-Thompson will be
recorded in the negative with regard to
Calendar Numbers 114 and 651.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Could we please
return to the controversial calendar. And
could we call up Senator Stafford's bill,
1023, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1023.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1023, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 4838,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law and
others, in relation to certain actions.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR McGEE: One moment,
please.
8794
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 1023 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you, Mr.
President.
It's not very often that I walk in
and walk right on stage. It's a bit difficult
for me, being rather shy and retiring. I'm
collecting myself here.
I see the bill. This involves
communities in the Adirondack Park. Now, just
to say that word, or those three words -- it's
two words, isn't it -- that sort of -- that
causes a debate right there. But what this
does -- and it's legislation that our
municipalities are interested in.
And this would be if they bond and
they have 30 percent of their taxable land
owned by the State, they would have to have
the permission of the Comptroller. At the
present time, if they have 10 percent of their
land owned by the State, they need the
Comptroller.
Now, you know, very often these
issues are more than just numbers and more
8795
than just words. You're talking about people
who live in the community, were born there,
they lived there all their lives, they believe
in the area, it's home to them. And don't
forget, they live on land, private land, just
like all of you people do, those who don't
live in the Adirondack Park.
I myself don't want to get into the
debate today on, you know, who's right and
who's wrong. I'm getting old enough to know
that sometimes we don't know who is right and
who's wrong. Of course, I know I'm right on
this issue. But I won't get into that.
I see some of my friends ready to
stand up already, so what I'll do is sit down.
And I'm sure they're not going to ask any
questions, so I'll let them . . .
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Strangely
enough, Mr. President, I do have a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I don't find that strange at all.
8796
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I think
he yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
is there any evidence that the Comptroller's
office, either in its current leadership or in
the past, has acted in a way that has been
detrimental to these towns by the reviews of
these capital expenditures before they've been
made?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, as
always, I get very good advice from my
counsel. And once again, he just said
something that I was going to share with you.
This is a departmental bill from the
Department of Audit and Control, otherwise
known as the Comptroller's office.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
it's part of a bill that was a departmental
bill. So we just took this part of the bill.
8797
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
my understanding is -- and perhaps Senator
Stafford's counsel would like to respond, or
Senator Stafford would -- is that the
Comptroller's office is currently reviewing
this bill to see how they feel about it.
So if the bill came from the
Department of Audit and Control, I don't know
what they would be reviewing. Because -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, Mr.
President, I think I could help here. If they
have this as part of a departmental bill, I
would think that probably they would say that
on this specific issue there would be no
problem. That would be my analysis here.
And of course, I went to school
right down here in your area, and that's where
I picked up my reasoning ability.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
we'll be happy to check again. We checked
this morning, and the Comptroller's office
told us that they weren't familiar with the
bill. Perhaps the individual wasn't familiar
8798
with the fact that it was an Audit and Control
bill. Obviously, if it's an Audit and Control
bill, we would want to support it.
But what I'll do is I'll just ask
this general question on the issue, and maybe
that will suffice.
First of all, the amendment from
10 percent of the overall land value -- and
the reason that when the land value exceeds
10 percent that the Comptroller's office takes
jurisdiction is that there's a feeling that
there's a compelling state interest. In other
words, taxpayers around the state would have
to become involved if these decisions turned
out to be in some way irrational or even
irresponsible.
My understanding is that when the
Comptroller's office has reviewed these
decisions in the past, they've actually been
quite sound, and that the Comptroller's office
has rarely ever had to make any comment that
was providing any direction in those
situations.
My question to Senator Stafford is
simply this. To enlarge the territory from
8799
10 percent to 30 percent seems to me like a
very great change, to triple the amount of
territory that would come within compliance of
the review by the Comptroller's office, when
in this particular area it was just that their
land was starting to exceed 10 percent.
Why such a large disparity between
the old threshold and the new one, Senator?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, Mr.
President, I'd say back in the days when Frank
Moore was Comptroller -- of course, he lived
in Indian Lake. And then J. Raymond McGovern
was Comptroller; he lived in Westchester. And
then he was followed by Arthur Levitt, who was
Comptroller, who did a fine job, and then
followed by the present Comptroller, who there
has been no problem. So I want to explain
that it is not anything like that.
It's hard for me to really explain,
but I will try. This original bill was passed
in 1948. And this is now 19 -- no, this is
2001, 2001. And when the communities have to
go back and do this, the municipalities, it is
a burden on them. And these people like to
feel that they are the same as a citizen in
8800
any other part of the state, rather than have
to do these things.
Now, if it gets up to 30 percent,
maybe we can argue that this should be done.
But with 10 percent, I would suggest that that
really is not necessary, and up to 30 percent.
We didn't pick 30. We picked this figure out
of the bill that the Comptroller's office
suggested in their bill.
And you know, whenever we get on
this issue, it's so difficult. Because, yes,
the Adirondacks, it's a -- the area is just
tremendous. We all want to make sure that we
have a great area in our state. But I
explained to you that people live there. We
have towns, villages. And really, the issue
of fairness comes up.
And if you lived there, I'm sure
you'd agree with me. And why should this be
for areas in the Adirondack Park when we don't
have this type of a law for other areas?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley -- we've got a list. Senator Farley,
and then Senator Dollinger.
Senator Farley.
8801
SENATOR FARLEY: I'd just like to
rise in support of Senator Stafford's bill. I
have a few communities -- I used to have more,
before the last reapportionment -- towns that
are in the Adirondack Park.
And what you're looking at -- and I
don't think you have to be a rocket scientist
to see that the Department of Audit and
Control doesn't want to have to be involved in
reviewing all these bond issues where there's
only a minuscule part of the community that is
covered by the Adirondack Park Agency.
As a matter of fact, some of my
towns do have 10 or 12 percent of their
community covered by the agency. No one lives
in that part, usually; it's state land. And
it's really not part of the issue.
And it would seem very much to me
that Audit and Control says if you've got more
than a third or 30 percent of your town that
is covered by state land, we will review
whether it is prudent to review a bond issue.
But for 10 percent, you're not talking about
an awful lot. And the time has really
changed. In some of these communities it's
8802
just burdensome getting the agreement back and
sending it down and so forth.
And it seems rather strange to me
that Audit and Control says they don't know
anything about the bill when this was very
much a part of an Audit and Control
legislation. And it sounds like Audit and
Control, in my judgment, somebody just didn't
get the word that was reviewing this
particular piece of legislation.
Because it sounds like Audit and
Control doesn't want to be bothered or feels
it's unnecessary to review a bond issue that
is where a community has slightly more than
10 percent.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just on the bill briefly.
I think I'm going to vote against
this bill, Mr. President. Let me tell you
why.
What this bill says is that -- this
is an unusual circumstance, as I understand
it. This is an instance in which the State of
8803
New York, which is otherwise exempt from
paying real property taxes, this says that
there are certain cases where in the
Adirondack Park the State of New York does pay
taxes on its land.
So we are doing something that we
usually don't do any other place in the state.
In the buildings that are state-owned
buildings and state-owned property in my
community, the State of New York doesn't pay
taxes, and rightfully so. One level of
government should not be obligated to pay real
property taxes to another.
But apparently in the Adirondack
Park we do do that. We changed our policy and
said that because we're preserving state land,
we're going to allow it to be assessed by the
local communities and we will pay taxes on it
as though it were owned by a private citizen.
Under those circumstances, because
we're paying the tax voluntarily that we're
not obligated to pay, apparently a prior
Legislature said, Well, if you're paying more
than 10 percent of the taxes for the community
you should be in a position where the State
8804
Comptroller, whose job it is to protect our
money, that you should be in a position in
which you have control over the towns or the
villages' expenditures.
Since we don't have a vote -- we're
not like a regular property owner that has a
vote -- the State Comptroller, to protect the
public fisc, would be in a position where
their approval was required before there's an
expenditure from one of the number of funds
that is listed here.
What this bill seeks to do,
apparently, without any evidence that that
power has been abused by the Comptroller -- I
think Senator Paterson asked whether there's
any evidence that the Comptroller hasn't gone
along with appropriations for highway
equipment and salt and needed expenditures out
of these repair, maintenance and other funds.
Under those circumstances, there's no evidence
the Comptroller has been obstructionist in
denying his consent.
And even more so, it seems to me,
that to protect our money, the State of
New York's money, we're now saying, Well,
8805
we're going to jump it from 10 percent to
30 percent. Which means that the Comptroller
will have very few instances in which he will
actually be able to exercise a control over
how the state's contribution to tax -- to
these villages and towns to have any control
over how they're spent.
I think that's a bad idea, and I
think without a justification that says that
the Comptroller has not been a good public
citizen, that he has not granted approvals in
a timely fashion -- or if he has failed to
approve them at all, then, Senator Stafford, I
would stand here and say if he's being an
obstructionist and doing something
unreasonable, I would look at changing this
bill.
But at this point it seems to me
that the State of New York, when it pays
property taxes on property that we would
otherwise not have to pay, we are giving these
communities a very significant benefit that
other communities outside the Park do not get.
And under those circumstances, it seems to me
it's reasonable to require that the
8806
Comptroller approve the expenditure of those
funds in certain instances.
And for that reason, Mr. President,
I'm going to vote against this bill. And
perhaps if there's a justification in the
future that the Comptroller is not being a
good citizen for these communities or that his
approval has been denied in an unreasonable
fashion, then I would reconsider my vote. But
in the concept at this point, Mr. President, I
vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 14. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1023 are
Senators Dollinger, Hassell-Thompson, Hevesi,
and Paterson. Ayes, 52. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
8807
is passed.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President, I
would ask that you make a notation that the
Social Services Committee meeting that was
scheduled for 2:30 will be held at the
conclusion of this session in Room 124.
And I would ask that you presently
stand at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Social Services Committee meeting will be held
at the end of session in Room 124.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: I would ask that
we return to motions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Motions
and resolutions.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. On behalf of Senator DeFrancisco,
I wish to call his bill up, Senate Print 581,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
8808
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
350, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 581,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which this
bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: I offer up the
following amendments, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Mr.
President. I would ask that we stand at ease
for a moment, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will stand at ease.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
8809
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 2:36 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 2:37 p.m.)
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President,
I'd like to call an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR McGEE: The Senate will
stand at ease pending the outcome of the Rules
Committee meeting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will stand at ease awaiting the report
of the Rules Committee.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 2:38 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 2:51 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to reports of standing
8810
committees, I believe there's a report of the
Rules Committee at the desk. I ask that it be
read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 801, by Senator Alesi,
an act to amend the General Business Law.
917, by Senator Kruger, an act
authorizing the City of New York.
1452, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the General Business Law.
1636, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
2342, by Senator M. Smith, an act
authorizing the City of New York.
2558, by Senator Stachowski, an act
to amend the General Municipal Law.
2597A, by Senator Velella, an act
to authorize the Village of Pelham.
2598, by Senator Velella, an act to
reopen the special retirement plan.
8811
3213, by Senator Lack, an act to
provide.
3768A, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Insurance Law.
4028, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Education Law.
4030, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law.
4597, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
4631, by Senator Farley, an act to
enact the Privacy of Financial Information
Act.
4726B, by Senator Lack, an act to
authorize the Town of Huntington.
4754, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Navigation Law.
4760A, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the Executive Law.
5134, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Family Court Act.
5161, by Senator Bonacic, an at to
amend the Public Authorities Law.
5183, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
8812
5261, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Highway Law.
5328, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the Education Law.
5337, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the Local Finance Law.
5342, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Executive Law.
And 5370, by Senator Bonacic, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the report of the
Rules Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
report of the Rules Committee is accepted.
8813
All bills directly to third
reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley has a motion, I believe.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On behalf of Senator Balboni, on
page 29, I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 591, Senate Print 3025, and I
ask that the bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there being no further business, I move we
adjourn until Wednesday, June 6th, at
11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
8814
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Wednesday, June 6th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)